Case Reference: 3309923

Our ref: APP/A1910/W/22/3309923
Ryan and May Ltd Your ref: 22/01187/MOA
sam.ryan@ryanandmay.co.uk
bob.may@ryanandmay.co.uk
By email only 15 March 2024
Dear Sir/Madam
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78
APPEAL MADE BY REDROW HOMES LTD & JAMES, JOHN AND JACQUELINE
WESTROPE
LAND BOUND BY BULBOURNE ROAD AND STATION ROAD, BISECTED BY
MARSHCROFT LANE, TRING, HERTFORDSHIRE, HP23 5QY
APPLICATION REF: 22/01187/MOA
This decision was made by Felicity Buchan MP, Minister for Housing and Homelessness,
on behalf of the Secretary of State
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the
report of Martin Whitehead LLB BSc(Hons) CEng MICE, who held a public local inquiry
between 7 March and 5 May 2023 into your clients’ appeal against the decision of
Dacorum Borough Council (the Council) to refuse your clients’ application for planning
permission for the following development: Hybrid application (with access details of two
main access points from Bulbourne Road and Station Road in Full and the main
development on the rest of the site in Outline with all matters reserved) for the demolition
of all existing buildings on the site and the development of up to 1,400 dwellings
(including up to 140 Use Class C2 dwellings); a new local centre and sports/community
hub; primary school; secondary school; and public open spaces including creation of a
Sustainable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG), in accordance with application
Ref. 22/01187/MOA, dated 31 March 2022.
2. On 21 December 2022, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's
determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town
and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1990.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed, and planning permission
granted subject to conditions. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees
with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where stated, but disagrees with his
recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.
The Inspector’s Report (IR), and the Inspector’s Addendum Report (AR) are attached. All
references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to those reports.
Department for Levelling Email: PCC@levellingup.gov.uk
Planning Casework Unit
Environmental Statement
4. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental
Statement (ES) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Having taken account of the
Inspector’s comments at IR2, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the EIA complies
with the above named Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for
him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal.
Matters arising since the close of the inquiry
5. On 22 November 2023, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) were renamed as
National Landscapes. For convenience, in this decision letter the Secretary of State
retains the terminology used by the Inspector. As there is no change to the statutory or
policy framework covering these areas, he does not consider it is necessary to refer back
to parties on this matter.
6. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was
published on 19 December and amended on 20 December 2023 and the 2022
measurement Housing Delivery Test figures were published on 19 December 2023. The
Secretary of State referred back to parties on 12 January 2024 to afford them the
opportunity to comment on both these matters.
7. A list of representations received in response to the 12 January letter is at Annex A.
These representations, and responses to them, were circulated to the main parties. The
material above and responses covered a range of issues, including, among other
matters, the application of the 20% buffer in five-year housing land supply and the weight
attaching to the benefits and harms of the proposal. The Secretary of State has taken
these representations into account when reaching his decision. Conclusions on specific
matters are set out below.
8. In September 2023, an updated Local Development Scheme (LDS) was published,
setting out the timescale for the production and adoption of the Dacorum emerging local
plan. On 30 October 2023, the Council launched a consultation on a new document titled
‘Dacorum Local Plan (2024 - 2040) Revised Strategy for Growth Consultation’ (the 2023
Emerging Plan). This consultation concluded on 11 December 2023. The 2023 Emerging
Plan removes the appeal site as an emerging allocation for development. The Secretary
of State has found at paragraph 17 below that the 2023 Emerging Plan carries little
weight. He is satisfied that this issue does not affect his decision or necessitate a referral
back to parties. Parties, however, made representations concerning the 2023 Emerging
Plan via the referral back to parties by the Secretary of State concerning the revised
Framework. However, his decision to afford the 2023 Emerging Plan little weight is
unchanged as a result of these representations.
9. The IR contains paragraph references to the previous version of the Framework; this
decision letter refers to both the old and the new paragraph numbers, where these are
different.
10. A list of other representations which have been received since the inquiry is also
specified at Annex B with a number of them drawing the updates regarding the
production of the emerging plan to his attention. The Secretary of State is satisfied that
the issues raised do not affect his decision, and no other new issues were raised in this
correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to
parties. Copies of the letters listed in Annexes A and B may be obtained on request to the
email address at the foot of the first page of this letter.
11. The requirement for mandatory biodiversity net gain has been commenced for planning
permissions granted in respect to an application made on or after 12 February 2024.
Permissions granted for applications made before this date, such as the appeal subject to
this decision, are not subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain.
Policy and statutory considerations
12. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004 which requires that proposals be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
13. In this case the development plan consists of the Dacorum Core Strategy adopted
September 2013 (CS), the Dacorum Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2017)
and Saved Policies of the Dacorum Local Plan 2004 (DLP). The Secretary of State
considers that relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR474, IR488,
IR490, IR494, IR498, IR499 and IR504. He agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of
the weight attached to development plan policies CS5 (IR474); CS1, CS24, CS25 and
DLP Policy 97 (IR488); DLP Policy 108 (IR490); and CS18 and CS19 (IR504).
14. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include
the Framework and associated planning guidance (the Guidance).
15. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990, the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of
preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or their settings or
any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess.
Emerging plan
16. At the time of the inquiry the emerging plan comprised the Dacorum Local Plan Emerging
Strategy for Growth (2020-2038). The Secretary of State notes that at that time the
emerging plan identified the appeal site for allocation as site Tr03 with the same number
of houses and a similar level of other development as proposed in this appeal (IR520).
17. As set out at paragraph 8 of this decision above, this has been superseded by the 2023
Emerging Plan. The Secretary of State notes that the updated LDS published in
September 2023 indicates that the 2023 Emerging Plan will be submitted for Examination
in February-March 2025, and adopted in February 2026. Among many other changes,
the 2023 Emerging Plan removes the appeal site as a proposed allocation for
development. The Secretary of State considers that as the 2023 Emerging Plan is at an
early stage and is still subject to change, it carries little weight.
Main issues
18. The Secretary of State agrees that the main issues are those set out by the Inspector at
IR452.
Five Year Housing Land Supply
19. The Secretary of State notes that based on the approach set out at IR454-455, the
appellant calculates that there is a housing land supply (HLS) of 1.77 years, while the
Council considers there is 2.19 years HLS (IR456). The Secretary of State agrees that as
per paragraph 8.6 of the Statement of Common Ground dated 20 December 2022 the
housing requirement for the Council should be calculated in accordance with the
Standard Method and that at the agreed base date of 1 April 2022 this is 1,018 dwellings
per annum. However, he does not agree that a shortfall of 1,060 dwellings should be
included in the five-year HLS calculation as set out at IR454. The Secretary of State
notes that the PPG ID: 2a-011-20190220 states that “The affordability adjustment is
applied to take account of past under-delivery. The standard method identifies the
minimum uplift that will be required and therefore it is not a requirement to specifically
address under-delivery separately. Where an alternative approach to the standard
method is used, past under delivery should be taken into account.” On this basis, the
Secretary of State finds that no shortfall should be included in the five-year HLS
calculation for Dacorum.
20. The Secretary of State accepts the evidence put forward by Revd Professor Bob May in
his representation dated 25 January 2024 that the Council delivered only 77% of its
housing needs over the past three years, which is as published by DLUHC on 19
December 2023. The Secretary of State further notes this is agreed by Martin Stickley on
behalf of the Council in his response dated 26 January 2024. He further notes that the
outcome of the Housing Delivery Test result for the Council now, as set out in both
aforementioned representations, is the application of a 20% buffer as per Framework
paragraph 74 (now 77) to the five-year HLS calculation. He therefore finds that by
applying a 20% buffer to the standard method figure of 1,018, the annual requirement for
the five-year HLS calculation is 1,221.6 dwellings per annum. Over a five-year period this
amounts to 6,108 dwellings.
21. For the reasons given at IR457-462 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
the Council has only demonstrated a deliverable supply of 2,516 dwellings. Based on the
Secretary of State’s conclusions reached on the annual requirement in paragraph 19
above, he finds that the Council is able to demonstrate a 2.06 year HLS. While this is at
marginal variance with the Inspector’s findings, he still considers this HLS deficit is
significant.
22. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is triggered, in accordance with
footnote 8 to paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.
Green Belt
23. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector and parties that the whole proposal
represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt (IR468). He has noted the
Inspector’s comments at IR469-470 and has set out his conclusions on these matters at
paragraphs 56-64 below.
24. For the reasons given at IR471-472 and IR530 the Secretary of State agrees that the
appeal site is both spatially and visually open, and that notwithstanding the appellants’
arguments concerning the reduced degree of harm to openness resulting from
undeveloped parts of the site (IR472), the loss of openness would be significant, due to
the large scale of the development (IR530), and the proposal would result in significant
harm to its openness.
25. The Secretary of State has considered whether the proposal would harm the purposes of
the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 138 (now 143) of the Framework. For the reasons
set out in IR473, he agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would result in significant
harm to Green Belt purpose (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas,
and Green Belt purpose (c), to assist in safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment. He further agrees at IR474 that the proposal would have a significant
adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land
within the Green Belt.
26. Overall, as set out at IR530, the Secretary of State agrees the harm to the Green Belt,
which includes harm due to inappropriateness, loss of openness and harm to the
purposes of checking the sprawl of built-up areas and safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment, carries substantial weight, in accordance with paragraph 148 (now 153) of
the Framework.
27. The Secretary of State has assessed whether the proposal is in accordance with CS
Policy CS5. He has agreed with the Inspector at IR474 (paragraph 13 above) that this
policy carries moderate weight. He notes that it refers to the application of national Green
Belt policy, but refers only to the restrictive elements, and that the policy makes no
provision for very special circumstances (VSCs). Taking into account the requirements of
Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, he considers the proposal would be in conflict with
CS Policy CS5.
28. The Secretary of State has gone on to apply national Green Belt policy. Paragraphs 147-
148 (now 152-153) of the Framework state that inappropriate development is, by
definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in VSCs. VSCs
will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt and any other harm resulting
from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The Secretary of State
has gone on to consider these matters. His conclusion on whether VSCs exist is set out
at paragraph 61.
Character and appearance of the surrounding area and setting of the Chilterns Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB)
29. For the reasons given at IR475-485 and IR530, the Secretary of State agrees that the
appeal site does not form part of a valued landscape for the purposes of paragraph
174(a) (now 180(a)) of the Framework, but does form part of the AONB’s setting (IR477).
He further agrees that the overall residual effect of the proposal on the landscape would
be minor adverse, once the mitigation has been established in the SANG, hedgerows
and along the proposed and existing streets (IR481). With regard to the visual effects, he
agrees that although the site would be clearly visible from a number of sensitive
locations, the extent of planting that would be accommodated within the SANG and
streets, combined with that which would be retained, would ensure that the residual
visual effect of the proposal would be moderate adverse (IR485). Overall, taking into
account the sensitive design of the development and proposed mitigation, he agrees that
the harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area should be given
moderate weight (IR530).
30. For the reasons given at IR486-487 and IR530, the Secretary of State agrees that
although built development within Tring is visible in the distance from many of the views,
the appeal proposal would extend this built development, much of which would be closer
to these sensitive receptors (IR487). He further agrees receptors in the AONB would
experience adverse effects, and there would also be harm due to a loss of panoramic
views of the AONB from Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) 057 and 058 resulting from tree
planting and building. He agrees that even with the existing and proposed planting there
would be residual adverse effects on the setting of the AONB, to which great weight
should be given, and further agrees that in line with paragraph 176 (now 182) of the
Framework, great weight should be given to this harm (IR487, IR530).
31. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR488 that the proposal would
have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and
setting of the AONB. He further agrees it would fail to accord with CS Policy CS1 as the
proposal would result in harm to the existing character of Tring’s adjoining countryside,
and CS Policy CS25 as it would fail to conserve or improve the prevailing landscape
quality, character and condition. He further agrees it would fail to accord with saved DLP
Policy 97, and CS Policy CS24, as the proposal would fail to conserve the special
qualities of the Chilterns AONB.
Loss of agricultural land
32. The Secretary of State notes at IR489 that the Appellants have stated the proposal would
use 116.7ha of agricultural land, of which about 59ha (49%) is Best and Most Versatile
(BMV) agricultural land, and that the ES finds that, taking account of the proposed
mitigation, the residual impact of the proposed development on agricultural land remains
major adverse. For the reasons given at IR489-490, the Secretary of State agrees that
given the extent of agricultural land that would be lost, including a relatively high
percentage of BMV agricultural land, and the findings of the ES, the harm carries
significant weight (IR490 and IR530). The Secretary of State acknowledges that footnote
62 of the Framework has been expanded and now states that the availability of
agricultural land used for food production should be considered, alongside the other
polices in the Framework, when deciding what sites are most appropriate for
development. The Secretary of State does not find this changes his position on the
weight applied to the harm to the loss of agricultural land. The Secretary of State agrees
at IR490 that the proposal does not accord with saved DLP Policy 108, as the Appellants
have not demonstrated that there is no alternative land of lower quality which could
reasonably be used.
Heritage
33. For the reasons set out at IR492-493 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
assessment of the impact of the proposal on both designated and non-designated
heritage assets. The Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would cause minimal
harm to the contribution setting makes to the high significance of the two designated
heritage assets, and that the harm would be less than substantial (IR493). For the
reasons given at IR494, the Secretary of State agrees that this harm carries great weight
in accordance with the Framework.
34. In line with the heritage balance set out at paragraph 202 (now 208) of the Framework,
the Secretary of State has considered whether the identified ‘less than substantial’ harm
to the significance of the designated heritage assets is outweighed by the public benefits
of the proposal. Taking into the account the public benefits of the proposal as identified in
this decision letter, overall the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR494 that
the benefits of the appeal scheme are collectively sufficient to outbalance the identified
‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets. He
considers that the balancing exercise under paragraph 202 (now 208) of the Framework
is therefore favourable to the proposal.
35. The Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would cause minimal harm to the
contribution setting makes to the lower significance of the three non-designated heritage
assets (IR493). The Secretary of State considers that this harm carries limited weight.
36. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees the proposal would accord with CS Policy CS27 as
it would protect the integrity, setting and distinctiveness of designated and undesignated
heritage assets (IR494).
Highways
37. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion on the matter of the speed
limit on Station Road at IR495. For the reasons given at IR496-498 he agrees that the
measures agreed with the Local Highway Authority would be sufficient mitigation, in
combination with improvements to the bus services and cycling and walking facilities, to
reduce the reliance on the car (IR496). He further agrees with the Inspector that the
proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and its residual
cumulative highway impacts on the road network would not be severe, and it would
therefore accord with paragraph 111 (now 115) of the Framework (IR498). For the
reasons given at IR498 he further agrees the proposal accords with CS Policy CS8 and
DLP Policy 106.
Flooding and drainage
38. For the reasons given at IR499 the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would not
have an adverse effect on the risk from flooding or drainage and would accord with CS
Policy CS31.
Habitats
39. The Secretary of State is the Competent Authority for the purposes of the Conservation
of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and for the reasons set out at AR2 he agrees
with the Inspector that he is required to make an Appropriate Assessment of the
implications of that plan or project on the integrity of any affected European site in view of
each site’s conservation objectives. The site is within the Zone of Influence of Chilterns
Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (IR464). The Secretary of State agrees
with the assessment and findings in IR464-467 and AR1-17, and agrees that the
proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the designated habitats
sites alone or in combination with other plans or projects and would be acceptable under
the tests of the Habitats Regulations (AR16). He therefore adopts the attached AR as the
necessary Appropriate Assessment in his role as the Competent Authority on this matter.
Benefits
Housing
40. For the reasons given in paragraphs 18-21 above, the Secretary of State finds that the
Council has only been able to demonstrate a 2.06 year HLS. He further finds that there is
an acute shortage of new homes in the Council area (IR502). He agrees that the
proposal would result in a significant boost to new housing in the Council area and, like
the Inspector, he is satisfied that it would be capable of contributing to the five-year HLS
that the Council has been unable to demonstrate (IR503). The Secretary of State agrees
at IR503 that the provision of up to 560 new market homes carries substantial weight.
41. For the reasons given at IR504-505 the Secretary of State is satisfied, like the Inspector,
that the proposal would deliver the proposed number of affordable homes, and that these
would help to address the identified significant deficiency in affordable homes in the
Council area and in Tring. He agrees that the provision of 45% of the dwellings as
affordable housing carries substantial weight (IR505).
42. The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR506 that the provision of 70 self
and custom build plots carries substantial weight.
43. The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR507 that the provision of 140
extra care units carries substantial weight.
Socio-economic Benefits
44. The Secretary of State agrees for the reasons given at IR508 that the socio-economic
benefits of the proposal, including employment benefits and the contribution of the future
residents to the local labour force and the local economy, should carry substantial weight.
Schools and Educational Facilities
45. The Secretary of State agrees with the position of the Council at IR322 that both the
primary school and provision for a secondary school are required to mitigate the harmful
effect of the development. He further agrees that while additional capacity may enable
other developments to come forward in Tring, the extent to which that additional capacity
will be taken up depends on whether any sites for development are allocated in Tring,
which is in turn dependent on the eventual outcome of the Local Plan process. He
considers that the provision of schools and educational facilities carries limited weight.
Recreational and Sporting Facilities
46. For the reasons given at IR510 the Secretary of State agrees that the provision of
recreational and sporting facilities would provide a wider benefit to local residents beyond
those residing within the new development and there would be improved access to the
countryside and pedestrian routes within the SANG. He agrees at IR510 that there does
not appear to be any deficit of orchards and allotments, and that open space on the site
would be within walking distance of a limited number of existing residents on the eastern
side of Tring. He agrees with the position of the Council at IR324 that to ensure their
commercial viability, the sports facilities available to existing and future residents will be
more limited if there is no secondary school on the site. However, he disagrees with the
moderate weight applied by the Inspector at IR324 and considers that this benefit carries
limited weight.
Community Facilities
47. For the reasons given at IR511 the Secretary of State agrees that the provision of
community facilities, including a serviced site to accommodate a new doctor’s surgery,
would provide benefits to the wider community. The Inspector applies low moderate
weight to this benefit at IR511, but the Secretary of State prefers the term limited weight.
Sustainable Transport
48. For the reasons given at IR512-513 the Secretary of State agrees that the appeal site is
in a sustainable location and that there would be benefits to the wider community from an
increase in frequency of bus services between the town centre and station, and
improvements to pedestrian and cycling facilities. He further agrees at IR513 that the
sustainable transport benefits carry moderate weight.
Ecology
49. For the reasons given at IR514-515, the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal
would deliver significant ecological benefits for people and wildlife (IR515). He further
agrees that whilst the provision of SANG and the other measures would be secured as
necessary mitigation, they would also provide ecological enhancement of the site which
carries moderate weight (IR515).
Design
50. For the reasons given at IR516, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that
design matters do not carry separate weight in the case.
Energy Sustainability
51. For the reasons given at IR517 the Secretary of State agrees that the sustainable energy
measures which would be secured by a planning condition carry low moderate weight,
but as set out above at paragraph 47 he prefers the term limited weight.
Development Plan
52. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s analysis at IR518-522 and IR531. He notes
that the Council has accepted that it does not have an up-to-date development plan, and
agrees that the Council has failed to adequately plan for the Borough’s future housing
needs (IR518). He has taken this into account in his consideration of this case, including
via the application of the presumption in favour of the sustainable development, and the
weights attaching to the provision of housing. He also notes that matters relating to the
emerging plan have moved on since the inquiry, as set out at paragraphs 8 and 16-17
above. Overall, he agrees with the Inspector that the Council’s repeated failure to
progress an up-to-date development plan that would meet its future housing need and
ensure the provision of sufficient sites is an important matter (IR522), but does not
consider that the matters set out in IR522 and the last sentence of IR531 carry separate
weight in this case.
Other matters
53. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions on the matters set out at
IR523-529.
Planning conditions
54. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR441-451, the
recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for them, and to
national policy in paragraph 56 of the Framework and the relevant Guidance. He is
satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy test
set out at paragraph 56 of the Framework . However, he does not consider that the
imposition of these conditions would overcome his reasons for dismissing this appeal and
refusing planning permission.
Planning obligations
55. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR418-440, the
section 106 Agreement dated 5 June 2023, the Unilateral Undertaking dated 31 May
2023, paragraph 57 of the Framework, the Guidance and the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010, as amended. For the reasons given at IR418-440, he
agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR440 that all the planning obligations in the
section 106 Agreement and the Unilateral Undertaking meet the tests in Regulation 122
of the CIL Regulations 2010 and paragraph 57 of the Framework. However, the
Secretary of State does not consider that the obligations overcome his reasons for
dismissing this appeal and refusing planning permission.
Planning balance and overall conclusion
56. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State considers that the appeal scheme is
not in accordance with Policy CS1, CS5, CS18, CS19, CS24, CS25, DLP Policy 97 and
DLP Policy 108 of the development plan, and is in conflict with the development plan
overall. He has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which
indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in line with the development
plan.
57. As there is no five year HLS, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework indicates that planning
permission should be granted unless: (i) the application of policies in the Framework that
protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the
development proposed; or (ii) any adverse impacts of doing so significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the Framework
taken as a whole.
58. Weighing in favour of the proposal is the delivery of market, affordable, custom and self-
build, and extra care housing, each of which carry substantial weight. Socio-economic
benefits also carry substantial weight. Ecological enhancement of the site and
sustainable transport benefits each carry moderate weight. The provision of schools and
educational facilities, community facilities, recreational and sporting facilities and the
higher standards of energy sustainability each carry limited weight.
59. Weighing against the proposal is the harm to the Green Belt from inappropriate
development, harm to openness and harm to the purposes of the Green Belt which
collectively carry substantial weight. Harm to the setting of the AONB carries great
weight, ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of designated heritage assets
carries great weight, the loss of agricultural land carries significant weight, harm to
character and appearance of the surrounding area carries moderate weight and harm to
the significance of non-designated heritage assets carries limited weight.
60. The Secretary of State has concluded at paragraph 34 above that the balancing exercise
under paragraph 202 (now 208) of the Framework is favourable to the proposal.
61. In line with paragraph 148 (now 153) of the Framework, the Secretary of State has
considered whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any
other harms resulting from the development is clearly outweighed by other
considerations. Overall, he considers that the other considerations in this case do not
clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other identified harms relating to
impact on character and appearance, setting of the AONB, harm to designated and non-
designated heritage assets and loss of agricultural land. He therefore considers that
VSCs do not exist to justify this development in the Green Belt.
62. In the light of his conclusions on the Green Belt test, the Secretary of State considers
there are protective policies which provide a clear reason for refusing the development
proposed. He further considers that the adverse impacts of granting permission would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in
the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development
therefore does not apply.
63. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that the
conflict with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate
that permission should be refused.
64. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that the appeal should be dismissed and
planning permission refused.
Formal decision
65. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your clients’ appeal and refuses
planning permission for the following development: Hybrid application (with access
details of two main access points from Bulbourne Road and Station Road in Full and the
main development on the rest of the site in Outline with all matters reserved) for the
demolition of all existing buildings on the site and the development of up to 1,400
dwellings (including up to 140 Use Class C2 dwellings); a new local centre and
sports/community hub; primary school; secondary school; and public open spaces
including creation of a SANG, in accordance with application Ref. 22/01187/MOA, dated
31 March 2022.
Right to challenge the decision
66. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the
Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an
application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for
leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the TCPA 1990.
67. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Council and the Combined Objectors’ Group,
and notification has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the decision.
Yours faithfully
L. Thomas
Decision officer
This decision was made by Felicity Buchan MP, Minister for Housing and Homelessness,
on behalf of the Secretary of State
Annex A – Schedule of representations received in response to the Secretary of
State’s letter of 12 January 2024
Party Date
B May (Ryan and May) 25 January 2024
M Stubbs (Chiltern Conservation Board) 25 January 2024
L Housden (Tring Town Council) 26 January 2024
D Gardiner (Chiltern Society) 26 January 2024
M Stickley (Dacorum Borough Council) 26 January 2024
C Berry (CPRE) 26 January 2024
B May 8 February 2024
Annex B Schedule of representations received since the closure of the inquiry
Party Date
T Gillen 27 February 2023
A Barker 25 March 2023
F Acott-Smith 26 March 2023
G Brown 26 March 2023
J Godfrey 26 March 2023
M Lea 30 March 2023
N & D Hulse 31 March 2023
M Lea 31 March 2023
M Tourle 31 March 2023
G Wilson 3 April 2023
M Lea 4 April 2023
D Gardiner 26 April 2023
A Pike 7 May 2023
M Lea 4 June 2023
F Cole 24 July 2023
R Shafer 28 July 2023
B May 20 September
J Robertson 4 October
D Gardiner 6 October 2023
H Milner 12 October 2023
G Bright (Grove Fields Residents Association) 16 October 2023
L Housden (Tring Town Council) 24 October 2023
M Stickley (Dacorum Borough Council) 7 November 2023
S Ryan (Ryan and May) 9 November 2023
D Gardiner (Chiltern Society) 14 November 2023
C Berry (CPRE Hertfordshire) 15 November 2023
Gagan Mohindra MP 29 November 2023
D Gardiner 7 December 2023
S Ryan (Ryan and May) 9 January 2024
Report to the Secretary of State for
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
by Martin Whitehead LLB BSc(Hons) CEng MICE
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date 16 August 2023
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Dacorum Borough Council
Appeal by
Redrow Homes Ltd & James, John and Jacqueline Westrope
Inquiry opened on 7 March 2023
Land bound by Bulbourne Road and Station Road, bisected by Marshcroft Lane, Hertfordshire,
HP23 5QY
File Ref: APP/A1910/W/22/3309923
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Contents
Page
Case Details and Summary of Recommendation 1
1 Procedural Matters 1
2 The Site and Surroundings 2
3 Planning Policy 3
4 Planning History 3
5 The Proposal 4
6 The Case for Redrow Homes Ltd & James, John and 4
Jacqueline Westrope
7 The Case for Dacorum Borough Council 62
8 The Case for the Combined Objectors’ Group (Rule 6 Party) 89
9 The Cases for Other Interested Parties 95
10 Written Representations 103
11 Planning Obligations 106
12 Planning Conditions 111
13 Inspector’s Conclusions 113
14 Recommendation 133
Appendix A Appearances 134
Appendix B Documents 136
Appendix C Recommended Conditions 153
Appendix D Abbreviations & Glossary 169
File Ref: APP/A1910/W/22/3309923
Land bound by Bulbourne Road and Station Road, bisected by Marshcroft
Lane, Tring, Hertfordshire, HP23 5QY
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against
the decision of Dacorum Borough Council.
• The application Ref 22/01187/MOA, dated 31 March 2022, was refused by notice dated
10 October 2022.
• The development proposed is described as ‘Hybrid application (with access details of two
main access points from Bulbourne Road and Station Road in Full and the main
development on the rest of the site in Outline with all matters reserved) for the demolition
of all existing buildings on the site and the development of up to 1,400 dwellings
(including up to 140 Use Class C2 dwellings); a new local centre and sports/community
hub; primary school; secondary school; and public open spaces including creation of a
SANG.’
Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal is allowed, and planning
permission be granted.
1 Procedural Matters
1. A Case Management Conference (CMC) Meeting was held virtually on Friday
13 January 2023 to discuss procedural matters relating to the Inquiry in order to
make best and most effective use of inquiry time. There was no discussion of the
merits of the proposal or of the cases for any parties. Notes of the meeting were
circulated to all known prospective inquiry participants1.
2. At the application stage, following a scoping opinion by the Council, the
Appellants submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which I find to
be adequate. There is no evidence to indicate that the EIA is inadequate. The
appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s (SofS’s) own determination by
letter dated 21 December 2022. The reason given is that the appeal involves
proposals for residential development of over 150 units or on sites of over 5 ha,
which would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a
better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality,
sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.
3. I opened the Inquiry on Tuesday 7 March 2023. It sat for 15 days at Dacorum
Borough Council Offices, The Forum, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP1 1DN,
except for Thursday 23 March, Wednesday 26 April and Thursday 27 April at the
Langley Suite, Holiday Inn, Hemel Hempstead, Wednesday 5 April at the Southhill
Centre, Cemetery Road, Hemel Hempstead, and Tuesday 25 April at the Holiday Inn
Aylesbury. I closed the Inquiry in writing on Friday 5 May following receipt of the
final submissions in writing.
4. I undertook an unaccompanied site visit of the area surrounding the site between
about 1530 hours and 1800 hours on 6 March prior to opening the Inquiry, and
an accompanied site visit of the site and surrounding area, including part of the
Chiltern Hills AONB, between about 1030 hours and 1645 hours on Thursday 9
March during an adjournment of the Inquiry. I also undertook an unaccompanied
1 Document CD12.7
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 1
site visit on Friday 28 April, which included the Ridgeway National Trail between
Pitstone Hill and Tring Park, Marshcroft Lane, Tring Station and Station Road.
Although I also revisited 17 Hollyfield Close as requested, the rear garden of
which backs onto the appeal site, I was unable to gain access. However, I had
viewed the site from the rear garden of this property on 9 March and I am
satisfied that at my 3 site visits I have gained a sufficient overall view of the site
to enable me to make well informed conclusions and a recommendation.
5. This Report sets out brief descriptions of the site and its surroundings, the
planning history, and the proposed development, together with an outline of the
main national and Development Plan (DP) policy and guidance. It gives the
material points made in the cases for the Appellants, the Council, the Rule 6
Party, other interested parties who appeared at the Inquiry, and those who made
written representations at the appeal and application stages, together with my
conclusions and recommendation. Lists of those appearing at the Inquiry and of
inquiry documents are appended, as are recommended conditions in the event of
the SofS granting planning permission and a list of abbreviations and a glossary
of terms used in this Report
2 The Site and Surroundings2
6. The appeal site consists of about 121 ha of mainly open rural land to the east of
Tring, with a small number of farm buildings at the northern end. It is
predominantly in agricultural use with mature hedgerows and some tree planting,
particularly near to the north-east and southern boundaries. It is relatively flat
with a localised mound in the north-west, sloping down to the south-east. There
is a slight ridge where the current buildings of Grove Farm are located.
7. The site is bounded by Bulbourne Road on the north-west and the Grand Union
Canal on the north-east. The Canal is set down within a deep cutting and there
is relatively dense vegetation along the top of the embankment on the eastern
edge of the site. To the south of the site is Station Road, along the southern side
of which are a number of buildings associated with Pendley Manor. To the south-
west of the site lies the settlement of Tring, which is separated from the northern
part of the site by two fields. Marshcroft Lane runs through the centre of the site
but is not included within the site boundaries. Also excluded are the residential
properties on Marshcroft Lane, Tring Garden Centre to the north-west of the site
and Ivy Cottage in the south-east corner.
8. There are no nationally designated buildings or Conservation Areas (CAs) within
the site boundary. Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) 057 and 058 run along the
site’s eastern boundary adjacent to the Grand Union Canal. The site lies within
the Metropolitan Green Belt and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) borders its northern, eastern and southern boundaries. It is situated
close to the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which
includes the Ashridge Estate managed by the National Trust. It also lies adjacent
to two Local Wildlife Sites. Tring railway station is located on Station Road,
around 450m from the eastern boundary of the site.
2 Document CD 12.12 Landscape SoCG section 2 and observations on site
Page 2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
3 Planning Policy
I have summarised below the main national and local plan policy documents. I have
given a more detailed description of the main policies that have been referred to in
this appeal under the cases for the Appellants and the Council.
9. Relevant National planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy
Framework, July 2021 (the Framework), and guidance contained in the Planning
Practice Guidance (PPG).
10. The DP for Dacorum includes the Dacorum Core Strategy adopted September
2013 (CS), Dacorum Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2017), and
Saved Policies of the Dacorum Local Plan, 2004 (DLP). The CS sets out the
overall spatial strategy for Dacorum. The main parties have agreed that it is
broadly consistent with the Framework in that it generally promotes sustainable
patterns of development having regard to economic, social and environmental
factors. They also agree that the saved general development management
policies of the DLP are broadly consistent with the Framework and can be
afforded due weight in the determination of the appeal3.
11. The main parties agree that the Dacorum Local Plan Emerging Strategy for
Growth (2020-2038) (Emerging DLP) has not been withdrawn and the weight to
be given to the plan is to be in accordance with paragraph 48 of the Framework.
They further agree that the evidence base published by the Council with regard
to the Emerging DLP has not been withdrawn and has not been superseded. The
latest Local Development Scheme (LDS) is dated February 2022 and there is no
confirmed date published for the resumption of public consultation on the
Emerging DLP4.
4 Planning History5
12. Harrow Estates purchased the land lying between Station Road and Marshcroft
Lane in 2013 (the ‘southern parcel’). The company subsequently promoted the
land as an allocation for housing development through the local plan process. In
early 2017, they entered into a joint promotion agreement for the remainder of
the land within the appeal site.
13. The site was identified in the Council’s Emerging DLP (Regulation 18 stage) as a
preferred location for a housing-led mixed-use development (Tr03). The
selection of sites for allocation in the emerging Plan was underpinned by a
number of evidence studies which informed officers’ recommendations on draft
site allocations.
14. In July 2021, the Council’s Cabinet raised objections to a number of core
proposals in the draft Emerging DLP, including the overall Spatial Strategy, the
proposed Delivery Strategy for Tring, and the proposed allocation Tr03: East of
Tring. The Cabinet deferred further progress of the Plan to allow additional time
for evidence to be gathered. A LDS was approved in February 2022 which
highlighted that the adoption of the Plan is now scheduled for October 2025.
3 Document CD12.8 Main SoCG paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6
4 Document CD12.8 Main SoCG paragraphs 5.8 to 5.10
5 Document CD2.4
Page 3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
5 The Proposal
15. The proposal would comprise up to 1,400 dwellings including affordable, elderly
persons’ accommodation, First Homes and self/custom-build. It would also
include new vehicular and pedestrian/cycle routes, a local centre with health,
community and workspaces, a sports/community hub, allotments and orchards, a
primary school and land for a potential secondary school and areas of open space
and Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG). The proposal was
submitted as a ‘hydrid’ application, with full planning permission being sought for
the accesses and outline planning permission being sought for the development
on the remainder of the site with all matters of detail reserved for subsequent
determination.
16. Vehicular access points are proposed to both Bulbourne Road and Station Road,
connected by a link road running north-south through the site. The western
section of Marshcroft Lane would become a vehicle free route for pedestrians and
cyclists. Improvements to three junctions locally would be made at London
Road/ Station Road, Grove Road/ Station Road/ Cow Lane and the A4251/ Cow
Lane.
6 The Case for Redrow Homes Ltd & James, John and Jacqueline Westrope
I have reported the case on the basis of the closing submissions6 with additional
references to the evidence submitted prior to and during the Inquiry. The following
is the gist of the material points made.
Appeal Proposal
17. The Government and the SofS are firmly committed to delivering 300,000 new
homes a year; addressing the housing crisis7; addressing the problem of
affordability; providing more social rented housing; delivering new schools; and
delivering new social infrastructure.
18. The appeal proposal is exemplar8 and mirrors exactly the draft allocation in the
Emerging DLP9 in terms of the boundary of the site; the precise number of
houses; the provision of accommodation for the elderly; the provision of land for
schools; the extent of the open space; the extent of the sports pitches; the
extent of the SANG; the landscape mitigation; the public transport requirements;
and all the facilities the Council identified as being necessary.
19. The location of the site is truly exceptional in that it is on the edge of one of the
most sustainable settlements in the Borough; it is a perfect location for an urban
extension to a town because it is located between the edge of the town and Tring
railway station, which is a busy mainline station with a high frequency of direct
trains into London Euston, with an average journey time of just 40 minutes; it
fills a gap of about 1 km between the town and the station with around 50
6 Document ID82
7 Document APP2a Appendix JS5: Planning Minister in 2013 and Chapter 3 and 4
8 Accepted by Chris Berry in cross examination
9 Document CD7.1.2: Emerging Strategy for Growth 2020-2038, page 232 Key Developments
in Tring (Plan) and page 236-7, Policy SP23: Delivering Growth in Tring, page 238 Policy SP4:
Delivering Growth in East Tring; and Document CD7.1.5 Draft Proposals Map
Page 4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
houses directly overlooking the route and all the activity that generated by a new
community of over 3,000 people; the site has been very specifically excluded
from the AONB; its outward edge is marked by the dense vegetation sitting
either side of the Grand Union Canal, which is an obvious choice for creating a
very well defined, significant and permanent long term boundary; it is adjacent
to a 1970s housing estate and the existing secondary school; it has no impact on
a CA or any historic part of the town centre; and it has a degree of built
development around and in all directions, including a theatre complex and car
park (south), hotel (south), houses (south, west, east and north), retail garden
centre and pet store (north), railway station and about 50 houses around it
(east) and houses and commercial activities at Bulbourne (north-east edge).
20. The Council has recognised that the exceptional circumstances needed to remove
the site from the Green Belt have been made out. The release of the site is
entirely consistent with national policy on Green Belt release in the Framework,
in that paragraph 142 advocates the release of sites which are “well-served by
public transport”, which the site is. The proposal matches national policy that
recognises that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should “also set out ways in
which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of
remaining Green Belt land”. This is because it takes intensively farmed
agricultural land where there is no public access, save for one footpath on the
eastern edge of the site, and provides full public access, and enhances the
ecology through the provision of SANG and other nature and biodiversity
enhancements across large parts of the site.
21. The Borough consists of 60% Green Belt outside of the urban areas, with much of
what remains being AONB. The need to release Green Belt sites is inevitable.
Even with the appeal site and all the others in the draft Emerging DLP being
developed, the Borough will remain 60% Green Belt because the proposal would
not even reduce the extent of Green Belt openness in Dacorum by 1%.
22. There has been a complete collapse in the delivery of housing in Dacorum
Borough. The Council promised the Local Plan Inspector that it would do a
Review of the Core Strategy and adopt that review by 2017/2018. Then it
promised a High Court Judge that it would do the same in the legal proceedings
that followed. The Council made no real attempt to carry out the Review. It did
not happen in 2017/2018 and it has not happened since. The Local Plan which
was to replace it has been stopped.
23. There is no up-to-date DP for this area. There is no certainty about whether any
form of local plan will be produced. The Appellants have worked collaboratively
for over 10 years with Council officers to progress the draft allocation. New
infrastructure like schools, bus services through a development, and large scale
green infrastructure such as a sports hub and a meaningful SANG can only be
delivered on a development at the scale proposed.
24. The appeal proposal will deliver the following:
24.1 1,400 homes that Tring and the wider Borough desperately need; including
630 affordable dwellings of which 158 (25%) will be social rented
affordable homes, 158 (25%) will be First Homes, 252 (40%) will be
affordable rented homes, and 62 (10%) will be intermediate affordable
Page 5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
homes; 140 Extra Care units; about 70 self-build and custom build units;
and 560 market houses of a mix to meet the identified local need.
24.2 A new primary school and nursery class, with an enlarged core to
accommodate expansion to meet future growth needs within the town.
24.3 Land for a secondary school, if and when that need arises, or for expansion
of the existing Tring School if preferred by the Education Authority.
24.4 Extensive sports pitches, consisting of up to 9 new high-quality pitches
able to be used concurrently for football and for other sports such as
rugby, hockey and lacrosse; a floodlit Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) with
four courts for netball, outdoor tennis, basketball, wheelchair or roller
sports; a full-size floodlit 3G pitch that can be used for senior football or
concurrently for 4 x mini-soccer/5-a-side pitches; a high-quality nine pitch
fine turn cricket facility with artificial wicket, 2 x practice nets and scorers
base; a clubhouse for the cricket facility, integrated within the Community
Building with a kitchen, café/social space and separate changing; an indoor
multi-use hall within the community building for one badminton court,
indoor bowls and fitness classes; a Sports Hub Building with 4 x changing
rooms, kitchen, café/social space, storage, reception and treatment
room(s) designed to extend to encompass a four-court sports hall, activity
studio and fitness facility if the secondary school land is developed; and a
dual-use agreement so the secondary school can have exclusive use of
enhanced sports facilities, which is substantially in excess of the standard
of sports facilities available to other new schools.
24.5 A SANG, designed in consultation with Natural England and meeting its
criteria, which it agrees will serve as an ‘intercept site’ for the SAC.
24.6 A circular walking route of 2.5km within the SANG, with multiple
possibilities for different routes and links to existing PRoWs, including the
Grand Union Canal.
24.7 A SANG café, welcomed by Natural England.
24.8 Over 10 ha of ‘supplementary SANG’ to facilitate further housing
development in the Borough.
24.9 The retention and enhancement of existing hedgerows and treelines as
part of a site-wide green infrastructure network.
24.10. Circa 35% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).
24.11. A minimum 30% increase in habitat units and 10% increase in
hedgerow units
24.12. Extensive new habitats for wildlife afforded by the SANG and green
infrastructure network.
24.13. Specific measures for wildlife to include bat and bird boxes and
hedgehog highways.
24.14. A significant boost to the local economy, including local jobs, consisting
of 180 gross direct Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs on site once fully
Page 6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
operational, with a total of 90 direct, indirect and induced net additional
jobs created for Dacorum residents; an average of about 175 gross direct
FTE jobs generated annually throughout the circa 10-year construction
period; and 90 direct, indirect and induced net additional FTE jobs created
for residents of Dacorum through the circa 10-year construction period.
24.15. Accommodating 1,715 additional workers to address challenges facing
businesses in recruiting and retaining labour.
24.16. Enabling a more vital age profile in Tring, addressing challenges the
town will face with an ageing population.
24.17. New social and community facilities accessible to the whole town,
consisting of a serviced site to accommodate a new doctor’s surgery, and
financial contribution of about £1.8m (index linked) towards healthcare
infrastructure provided by the Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated
Care Board within the vicinity of the development, including but not limited
to the construction of a new medical centre on the ‘Medical Centre Site’; a
building to accommodate a private day nursery; and a new multi-function
community hall built to a high standard that also incorporates one
badminton court.
24.18. A comprehensive package of transport improvements including a new
segregated pedestrian/cycle connection to Tring railway station.
24.19. A ‘Bus Service Contribution’ of £735,024 to support a two-bus service
operating between Tring town centre, the development, Tring railway
station and Aldbury.
24.20. The direct delivery of transport improvements by the Appellants as part
of the development.
24.21. Financial contributions of £160,000 towards transport infrastructure to
support sustainable modes of transport consisting of £10,000 ‘Covered
Cycle Parking Contribution’; £100,000 ‘Footway and Cycle Improvements
Tring to Northchurch Contribution’; £15,000 ‘Improved Cycle Signage
Contribution’; and £35,000 ‘Town Centre Cycle Parking Contribution’.
24.22. A travel plan and school travel plan will be provided to promote active
healthy safe and sustainable travel (including but not be limited to walking
and cycling) to and from the development.
24.23. More than £600,000 investment (index linked) in improvements to Tring
railway station to deliver additional cycle parking and improved access for
pedestrians and cyclists, as well as improved facilities for all passengers.
24.24. A proposal which will achieve a high quality design to include a range of
play spaces integrated across the open space network; retention and
celebration of archaeological features in a new heritage garden; an
extensive network of Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) features
sensitively integrated into the open spaces; extensive areas of new publicly
accessible open space; provision of high quality walking and cycling
infrastructure promoting active modes of travel; retention of existing
hedgerows and trees; successional tree planting along Station Road to
Page 7
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
safeguard its long-term quality and character as a tree-lined route;
creation of new high quality, passively-surveilled and segregated walking
and cycling routes along Station Road; design proposals inspired by the
character of Tring’s historic built environment; and a rich range of habitats
across the open spaces.
24.25. A minimum of 2,800 trees planted across the development (2 per
dwelling).
24.26. Significant additional tree and shrub planting in the SANG.
24.27. A new community orchard.
24.28. New allotments.
24.29. Sustainable energy measures throughout, including a ‘fabric-first’
approach to construction; use of Air Source Heat Pumps on all dwellings’;
and use of PV panels for sustainable energy production; and a commitment
to a reduction of 90% allowable emissions against 2021 Building
Regulation Part L.
24.30. Zero-carbon ready.
24.31. Index linked financial contributions of more than £1 million, for
improvements to off-site sports facilities consisting of Tring Sports Centre
for new or improved pitches and changing rooms to improve the capacity
at the Club (£73,532); Tring RUFC for new or improved pitches and
changing rooms to improve the capacity at the Club (£205,166); and Tring
Sports Centre for further improvements to swimming facilities (£801,364).
24.32. Where Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) decide not the bring forward
the new secondary school, or new sixth form college on the appeal site,
additional financial contributions consisting of an off-site ‘Activity Studio
Contribution’ of £133,308 (Index Linked) towards the expansion or
enhancement of the existing activity studio provision at Tring Leisure
Centre, or another existing facility in the vicinity of the development, or
the provision of a new activity studio at a new facility to be constructed in
the vicinity of the development; and an off-site ‘Fitness Suite Contribution’
of £490,400 (Index Linked) towards the expansion or enhancement of the
existing fitness suite provision at Tring Leisure Centre, or another existing
facility or the provision of a new fitness suite at a new facility to be
constructed in the vicinity of the development.
24.33. ‘Canal Towpath Improvements’ of £396,270 (Index-Linked) towards
upgrading of the Canal towpath between Marshcroft Lane and Station
Road.
24.34. A ‘Public Footpath Contribution’ of £52,371 (Index-Linked) towards
improvements to the public footpath number TT62 located between
Marshcroft Lane and Northfield Road.
24.35. A Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) contribution of
£1.28m (£913.88 per dwelling Index Linked) towards the maintenance,
improvement, management, access management and monitoring works to
Page 8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
mitigate the recreational impact of the development in accordance with the
Chilterns Beechwoods Recreational Pressure Mitigation Strategy.
The Development Plan
25. The relevant parts of the DP for the purpose of this appeal are the Saved Policies
of the DLP and the CS. The DLP relies on policies which have had to be saved,
with the Saving Direction for those policies being issued in 2007. The Council is
still having to rely on this Plan in its decision making because the CS is not a full
plan. Much of the evidence which lies behind the CS was prepared before the
Framework was issued in 2012. The methodology for calculating objectively
assessed need (OAN) was not issued until 2014, so the plan cannot be said to be
based on a Framework compliant figure. The CS, therefore, does not properly
reflect the Framework and has never addressed the housing needs prescribed by
the Framework.
26. The CS Inspector did not believe the CS in terms of its content as it did not
adequately address the housing needs of the area and was not based on the
latest data, did not address the full OAN of the Borough and the Council had
failed to conduct a Green Belt Review. The only way the Inspector was prepared
to find it sound was if the Council “committed to a partial review of the CS, to be
adopted by 2017/2018”10. Main Modification to the plan MM2811 committed the
Council to the partial review whereby it agreed to assess, amongst other things
“the role and function of the Green Belt affecting Dacorum including long term
boundaries and the potential to identify safeguarded land beyond 2031”.
27. The adoption of the CS was challenged in the High Court because of the plan’s
failure to address the housing needs of the area or carry out a Green Belt
Review. In the High Court, the Council through its barrister Martin Kingston QC,
submitted that the Council would progress the review. He emphasised that there
was a strong incentive for the Council to get on with its review of the CS, stating
that “If it does not do so it will find it more and more difficult to rely on its
adopted policies for meeting housing need when making decisions on applications
for planning permission.”12
28. The Council never did conduct the Review it promised both the Inspector and the
High Court it would adopt. It did not adopt it in 2017/2018 as promised. By
2017, the Council undertook to adopt it by 2019, before the Site Allocations
Development Plan Document (DPD) Inspector13. The Council has never adopted
the Review.
29. Pursuant to the Framework, all DPs are required to be up-to-date. National
policy treats housing targets as being out-of-date after 5 years.14. Both the DLP
(adopted over two decades ago) and the CS (adopted a decade ago) contain
housing targets which are out-of-date. Also, the CS housing requirement is far
too low and not based on OAN, so the CS is not a Framework compliant plan, and
10 Document CD4.7 page 8 paragraph 27
11 Document CD4.7: Appendix page 29
12 Document CD 4.6 paragraph 54 of the Judgment of Mr Justice Lindblom (as he then was)
13 Document CD4.9 Site Allocations Plan Inspector Report (April 2017), page 5, [11]
14 Document CD6.1 paragraph 74 and footnote 39
Page 9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the Council has never had a Framework compliant plan. The DP for the area of
the appeal site is therefore fundamentally out-of-date.
30. The critical Green Belt review that the Council promised to carry out has also
never taken place. This was essential, given that outside of the existing built-up
areas around 60% of the Borough is Green Belt and much of the remainder is in
the AONB where major development should not take place if there are alternative
locations for it to be accommodated (i.e. non AONB)15.
31. If the housing requirement is out-of-date, then the settlement boundaries and
the corresponding Green Belt boundaries will also be out-of-date. If the plan is
not meeting present day needs and the Green Belt encompasses main towns like
Tring, the Green Belt boundaries around the main settlements will be out-of-
date. This is because the plan from which those Green Belt boundaries are
drawn will not reflect allocations which properly address the need16.
32. Green Belt is a restrictive policy but, if the Very Special Circumstances (VSC) are
made out, the Framework would support the grant of planning permission. It
would not be a situation where the tilted balance should be disapplied17.
Satisfying the VSC test would mean that the test in Framework paragraphs 147
and 148 would provide a clear reason for allowing development. So, the
presumption would apply, and planning permission must be granted.
33. The Appellants’ case is that VSC apply in the appeal case. Even if that were not
the case, it does not mean that the weight to be given to Green Belt boundaries
cannot be reduced if they are based on a shortfall in the five year Housing Land
Supply (HLS)18. Less weight ought to be given to the Green Belt boundaries
around the main settlements in Dacorum. This is because those boundaries are
based on both an out-of-date DP which is not properly planning for the area and
should have been reviewed before 2017 and which are inevitably contributing to
the chronic shortfall in the five year HLS.
34. The policies of the plan are also inconsistent with the Framework in various
ways19. CS Policy CS5 Green Belt is the only DP policy said to be breached. It is
wholly inconsistent with the Framework. It does not mention the crucial VSC test
at all. It only says that it will apply national Green Belt policy “to protect the
openness and character of the Green Belt, local distinctiveness and physical
15 Document CD6.1 paragraph 177(b)
16 Lord Carnwath in the Supreme Court Suffolk Coastal v Hopkins Homes: Richborough
Estates v Cheshire East [2017] UKSC 17 at paragraph 63 held in respect of the Richborough
Estates appeal that the Inspector was entitled to reduce the weight he gave to a restrictive
policy (in that case a countryside protection policy) when the boundary of the countryside is
based on housing requirement was out of date: “He was clearly entitled to conclude that the
weight to be given to the restrictive policies was reduced to the extent that they derived from
“settlement boundaries that in turn reflect out-of-date housing requirements”.
17 Document CD6.1 paragraph 11((d)(i)
18 Lord Gill in the above Supreme Court case at paragraph 79: “Among the obvious
constraints on housing development are development plan policies for the preservation of the
greenbelt, and environmental and amenity policies and designations such as those referred to
in footnote 9 of paragraph 14. The rigid enforcement of such policies may prevent a planning
authority from meeting its requirement to provide a five-years supply.”
19 Document CD6.1 paragraph 218
Page 10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
separation of settlements”. Moreover, it identifies exceptions in the third
paragraph thereby making clear that the policy itself identifies what exceptions to
Green Belt protection are permitted by the policy. It suggests that further
guidance will be provided that might have identified the VSC test but no such
guidance was ever produced. It also rules out a Green Belt boundary review,
which is itself inconsistent with the Framework. As such the policy is completely
at odds with the Framework over the crucial test in this case20 and the policy
should be given very little weight for that very reason alone. Therefore,
conformity or otherwise with the DP has little relevance at the appeal. Even if
the Policy does incorporate the VSC test, the proposal would be in conformity
with the DP because VSC exist due to all the benefit arising from the proposal.
35. No weight should be given to CS Policy CS5 given that it is inconsistent with the
Framework on the pivotal issue of VSC. Furthermore, the weight to all key
policies can also be reduced because the DP itself is out-of-date as it is based on
out-of-date housing requirements and there is a lack of a five year supply.
36. The weight to give the policies is important because, in the absence of the tilted
balance, the normal statutory test under section 38(6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004) is to be applied. Under this test,
planning permission can be granted if the material considerations in favour of the
proposal outweigh conflict with the DP. In the appeal, the conflict with the DP is
minimal (one policy is identified in the sole Reason for Refusal) and it is out-of-
date and inconsistent with the Framework.
37. The protection of the Green Belt comes from the Framework. The decision maker
should not reduce the weight to be given to CS Policy CS5 or the boundary of the
Green Belt in Dacorum but should focus on the material considerations weighing
in favour of the proposal21.
38. The list of ‘most important policies’ for determining the appeal is agreed22. The
Council does not allege a breach of any of them other than CS Policy CS5. There
is no alleged breach of DLP Policy 97 or CS Policy CS24 concerning protection of
the AONB. Nor any allegations of unacceptable impact on landscape character
under CS Policy CS25. There is no identified breach of DLP Policy 108 concerning
agricultural quality. Nor a breach of DLP Policy 106 concerning protection of the
canalside environment.
39. No weight should be given to DLP Policy 97 (Chilterns AONB), Policy CS17 New
Housing, Policy CS18 Affordable Housing and Policy CS23 Social Infrastructure,
because each is inconsistent with the Framework23. Moderate weight should be
given to DLP Policy 108 AONB, CS Policies CS10-CS13 Quality of Development
and Policy CS25 Landscape Character, because they are partially compliant with
20 Document APP15 paragraph 4.54 page 23
21 Lord Gill in the Supreme Court Suffolk Coastal v Hopkins Homes: Richborough Estates v
Cheshire East [2017] UKSC 17 at paragraph 84: “If the policies for the supply of housing are
not to be considered as being up-to-date, they retain their statutory force, but the focus shifts
to other material considerations. That is the point at which the wider view of the
development plan policies has to be taken.”
22 Documents CD12.8 and APP15 pages 17 and 18 and Table 4.1
23 Document APP15 pages 15 and 17
Page 11
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the Framework. Full weight should be given to DLP Policy 106 and CS Policy
CS24, because they are fully compliant with the Framework. Those policies that
are inconsistent with the Framework outnumber those which are not24. In any
event, because the Council accepts it cannot demonstrate a five year HLS, the
most important policies are automatically out-of-date25. Overall, the proposal
conforms with the DP as a whole, in that only one policy is said to be breached.
40. The Government wants to see up-to-date development plans that address the
housing and other development needs of the area. These plans should be
underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence26. They should also be
positively planned providing a strategy which as a minimum seeks to meet the
area’s objectively assessed housing needs27. It should support the Government’s
objective to boost significantly the supply of new homes28.
The Emerging Local Plan
41. Work on the Emerging DLP started 10 years ago. There is a vast evidence base
underpinning its contents29. It involves over 50 individual reports covering
everything from an urban capacity study to a report on the impact on the
Chiltern Beechwoods SAC. There was detailed work on housing need and the
economy, through to a landscape sensitivity study. The Green Belt and how best
to accommodate new development within the Green Belt was also examined as
part of that process. The consequence of this work is that the Council recognised
that it can only meet its housing need through the release of Green Belt land.
That was an inevitable consequence, with so much of the Borough being Green
Belt, especially all the land around the main towns, and large parts of the
Borough being AONB, which the Council avoided30.
42. The Emerging DLP allocated the appeal site for 1,400 homes at Tring and a
further 800 homes around the town. That Tring should be a focus for growth is a
reflection of the detailed Settlement Hierarchy Study. As stated in the Emerging
DLP: “The Settlement Hierarchy Study identifies Tring as one of the most
sustainable towns in the Borough as it provides a hub for a whole range of
services and facilities for its residents and surrounding rural hinterland. Given its
size, level of facilities and transport links, the settlement should be an important
focus for meeting the Borough’s development needs.”31
43. All the sites allocated for development in the Green Belt inevitably have a
negative impact on openness and, to a greater or lesser extent, harm one or
more purposes of the Green Belt. The appeal site is very well contained and
wholly outside the AONB, and the Council considers the proposal to harm only
24 Mr Justice Dove Wavendon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State of Housing Communities and
Local Government & Anor [2019] EWHC 1524 (Admin)
25 Document CD6.1 footnote 8
26 Document CD6.1 paragraph 31
27 Document CD6.1 paragraph 35(a)
28 Document CD6.1 paragraph 60
29 Document APP15 pages 41-45
30 Document CD6.1 paragraph 179(c)
31 Document CD7.1.2, page 232, paragraph 23.138
Page 12
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
one of the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt32: safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
44. The Arup work demonstrates that Green Belt harm was taken into account in the
identification of suitable housing sites in the Borough, but adverse comments
were outweighed by all the other relevant considerations such as meet housing
needs, the lack of urban capacity, the settlement hierarchy, transport
sustainability, landscape sensitivity, avoiding placing major development in an
AONB and the need for release of Green Belt land.
45. In 2020, the Council progressed a preferred option version of the Dacorum Local
Plan Emerging Strategy for Growth (2020–2038)33, which identified the appeal
site for allocation, and Green Belt release, as the ‘East of Tring Growth’ area
(draft allocation Tr03)34. The allocation would have accommodated exactly the
same quantum of homes (1,400) with associated infrastructure, including
secondary and primary schools, health and community facilities, sports hub and
open space, as the appeal proposal.
46. The Emerging Strategy has not been withdrawn35. The evidence documents that
supported the allocation remain in the public domain and have not been
superseded. The ‘evidence base’ prepared by the local authority is a significant
range of documents and is the ‘best and only’ evidence available36. In agreeing
this, the Council witness responsible for managing the progress of the DLP
confirmed that it is the best and only evidence that is available for decision
making on how to meet the chronic need for housing. He also confirmed that it
is the only evidence available regarding how to address the need for affordable
housing and how to meet the infrastructure requirements of the Borough,
including decisions upon allocating sites and releasing land from the Green Belt.
47. The Council’s refusal to progress the Emerging DLP is wholly out of step with
national policy. The Cabinet decision of July 2021 recorded the Council’s
‘scepticism’ as to the housing target under the standard method and a general
unwillingness to release any Green Belt. There is no record of any meaningful
progress with the DLP for almost 2 years37. The Council knows that it must
release the site.
48. LPAs have a responsibility to always have an up-to-date local plan38. The failure
to have an up-to-date plan is the greatest failing of any LPA and strikes at the
heart of what the planning system is there to do. The Council witness39 accepted
that the Council were ‘failing spectacularly’ in the context of housing land supply
32 Document DBC5
33 Documents CD7.1.1-7.1.6
34 Documents CD7.1.2 page 232 Key Developments in Tring (Plan) and page 236-7, Policy
SP23: Delivering Growth in Tring, page 238 Policy SP4: Delivering Growth in East Tring; and
CD7.1.5 Draft Proposals Map
35 Document CD12.8 page 10, paragraph 5.8
36 Ronan Leydon in cross examination
37 Document APP15 Section 6 paragraph 6.2 confirms that the Council had not been able to
confirm what further studies had been commissioned which might change the evidence base
of the emerging local plan; and the Council continues to be in the same position
38 Document CD6.1 paragraphs 11, 12 and 15
39 Ronan Leydon in cross examination
Page 13
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
and failing as an authority in respect of having an up-to-date local plan that could
address it.
49. The Emerging DLP has not been submitted to the SofS and so the examination
process has not even started. It is for that reason that Professor May gives it no
weight. The plan has not been subject to any independent examination or
scrutiny and the Inspector’s report is a long way off. There is no obvious date in
sight for submission or examination, let alone adoption. Even if a draft local plan
is produced before the decision is issued, any new local plan will similarly be
incapable of being given any weight until it is examined. In these circumstances,
the huge body of evidence that is the evidence base behind the Emerging DLP
becomes so crucial.
50. Many Inspectors have focussed on the evidence base of an emerging local plan in
the situation of local plans not being progressed40. The appeal development is
proposed in the Emerging DLP, following years of hard work and extensive
evidence gathering and assessment. Whilst no real weight can be given to the
Emerging DLP given the procedural steps it must follow, the fact the site has
been identified in an emerging local plan means it is not speculative as far as the
Council is concerned.
51. Tring is a community in which new families moved in in significant numbers in
the 1960s and 1970s. There would have been no affordable housing, no large
scale public open space, let alone things such as SANG. There has been a dearth
of new housing development since that era. As a consequence, it needs a lot
more housing and a lot more affordable housing. The appeal proposal is more
beneficial to the local community than the housing built on greenfield land which
are the homes of many of the objectors.
52. The adopted DP does not meet the need for accommodation for all sections of
community, as required in the Framework and PPG. There is no policy on self-
build housing or specialist housing for the elderly such as Extra Care.
53. The evidence base for the Emerging DLP should be given significant weight41.
Professor May disagrees with the conclusion of the Arup Report but gives the
evidence base as a whole significant weight. This is because, collectively, it is an
evidence base which addresses the housing needs of the Borough by selecting
sufficient sites to meet that need, having looked in detail at matters like urban
capacity and landscape sensitivity. The Arup work is not all of the evidence base.
The evidence base took account of mitigation and the desire for housing to be
matched by the delivery of social and physical infrastructure, open space and
ecological mitigation, and included detailed analysis of transport, local facilities,
open space, playing pitches, rail and bus strategies, landscape sensitivity and the
Infrastructure Delivery Plan. That is why the Council decided it ought to allocate
such a large area of land that is infrastructure-led, transport focussed, carefully
landscaped, and rich in green infrastructure.
40 Documents CD11.22 paragraph 54: Significant weight has been given to the evidence base
of emerging local plan; and CD11.21: Significant weight has been given to the evidence base
of plans which have been abandoned
41 As accepted by Martin Stickley in cross examination
Page 14
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
54. The Appellants’ expert team have invested over 5,000 hours during a decade just
on the local plan and £1.8 million has been spent on the plan to date. All
culminated in the identification of the appeal site as an allocation suitable for
1,400 new homes, schools, a sports hub etc. The appeal proposal is therefore
good planning42.
55. The only alternative to the allocation in the Emerging DLP would be to allocate
land in the AONB or away from settlements, and there is no evidence that is ever
going to happen. So, this is the best and only identified solution to meet housing
need. If the plan does not meet housing need, it is unlikely to be found sound.
56. Even if the proposed changes to the Framework come into force, they do not
obviate the need for local authorities to meet their housing need. Housing need
must be met, save for in exceptional circumstances. The Borough would be left
with about the same amount of Green Belt, still covering around 60% of the
Borough, even when all the allocations in the Emerging DLP are built out.
Green Belt Harm
57. The appeal proposal includes built development over circa 40% of the appeal site
and will be concentrated against the existing built edge of the settlement. Circa
60% of the appeal site will remain as open green space and will become publicly
accessible. This is a significant benefit to both the local community of Tring and
its surroundings and incoming residents: either as SANG, playing pitches,
allotments or other open space43.
58. The Framework seeks to ensure that if land is taken out of the Green Belt for
housing then it should be “offset through compensatory improvements to the
environmental quality and accessibility of the remaining Green Belt”44. The land
is currently in intensive agricultural production. Save for a footpath along the
eastern edge of the site, there is no public access to the land. When the appeal
proposal is complete, it will deliver vast areas of public open space, with a wide
range of ecological and other environmental enhancements, including the SANG,
30% BNG and 2,800 trees.
59. Every factor expressly referred to in the PPG 64-002 in respect of compensatory
improvements will be present in the retained open space: new and enhanced
green infrastructure; woodland planting; landscape and visual enhancements
(beyond those needed to mitigate the immediate impacts of the proposal);
improvements to biodiversity, habitat connectivity and natural capital; new and
enhanced walking and cycle routes; and improved access to new recreational and
playing field provision.
60. There will be definitional harm because the built form within the proposed
development is inappropriate development45. The Appellants recognise that most
engineering works, the SANG café and car park and the floodlighting of some of
the sports pitches makes the task of deciding what is and is not inappropriate
development on the site complicated. Therefore, they accept the proposal as a
42 Professor May in cross examination
43 Document APP2 page 35, paragraph 9.14 and page 36, paragraph 9.18
44 Documents CD6.1 paragraph 142 and APP15 pages 68-69, paragraphs 11.5-11.11
45 Document CD6.1 paragraphs 147 and 149
Page 15
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
whole is inappropriate development, but over half of the development will not
actually harm openness.
61. The Appellants accept that this adverse effect should be accorded very
substantial weight in accordance with national policy and established practice46.
They recognise that the built part of the development will self-evidently erode the
openness, especially in relation to spatial openness. The spatial openness of the
Green Belt in the eastern half and some of the central part of the site will largely
be retained as it will be free from development. The impact in terms of visual
harm47 will be significantly reduced as over half the site will be free from
development, and vegetation around and within the site is very extensive. There
is also some built development on all sides, with it most concentrated to the west
of the site. The huge and continuous line of trees either side of the Grand Union
Canal almost completely shields the site from the wider countryside to the east
and offers a robust boundary48.
62. There will be a negative impact on visual openness from the high ground of the
Chilterns edge and along the Ridgeway, but the distance from the elevated land
at Pitstone Hill and the footpaths upon it to the red line boundary of the site is
around 1.52 km (Site Context Photograph 4). Also, the part of the site that is
most visible from that point, the central part of the northern half of the site, is an
area proposed for sports pitches. The existing vegetation across much of the
remainder of the site, the extensive planting, and the commitment to extensive
planting within the built-up areas of the proposal will all assist to mitigate the
spatial impact on openness.
63. The Appellants accept that there will be harm in respect of the purposes of
restricting sprawl (limited harm) and encroachment into the countryside
(moderate harm)49. This harm to purposes should be accorded moderate weight
overall50. The site is separated from the wider countryside, including all the
AONB, and the extent to which a proposal does not impact on the wider
countryside has to be seen as relevant51. There are no coalescence issues and
no harm to the setting of the town from a heritage perspective.
64. Development of the appeal site would appear as an entirely coherent addition to
the existing settlement pattern and would be completely in keeping with the
character of the edge of Tring immediately to the west, especially when subject
to the landscape principles set out52. The site is next to a mainline railway
station, a new bus service will operate down the spine road taking passengers,
who do not wish to walk, to the station and to the town centre. It is the sort of
Green Belt site which should be developed in the manner proposed with
46 Document APP15 page 75, paragraph 11.48 and Table 11.1; and DBC5c page 9 Table 3
47 Turner v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 466
48 Document CD6.1: in line with paragraph 140
49 Documents APP15 pages 69-70, paragraphs 11.13-11.19; APP2 pages 32-34 Table 9.1 and
paragraphs 9.12-9.17; and CD1.7, Planning Statement pages 54-55, paragraph 17.9
50 Document APP15 page 75, paragraph 11.48 and Table 11.1
51 Documents CD11.1: Colney Heath Appeal Decision and CD11.13: York Appeal Decision;
and Martin Stickley accepted it must be relevant
52 Documents APP2 pages 21-22, paragraphs 7.10-7.12; and CD1.29 Landscape and
Biodiversity Management Strategy
Page 16
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
extensive public access and ecological enhancement. A new much more robust
permanent boundary will be created from the double thickness vegetation along
the Grand Union Canal. The site is therefore being developed in line with the
guidance in paragraph 142 of the Framework.
Other Harms
65. The Appellants accept that there is an element of landscape harm that would
arise from any development in the countryside and a limited harm to the setting
of the AONB. However, there is either no harm under all other areas or very
little harm53.
Landscape and AONB
66. Landscape is solely raised by the Council as an ‘other harm’ component of the
planning balance54. As a consequence of the Council’s acceptance of a condition
in respect of structural landscaping, the areas of disagreement have been
narrowed. The site is allocated in the Emerging DLP, Tr03 for the same quantum
and types of development55, confirming that it is acceptable in landscape terms.
67. The appeal site features are summarised in the Landscape Statement of Common
Ground (SoCG)56. It does not have any statutory or local landscape
designations57. It is located adjacent to, but not within, the AONB58. It does not
form part of a valued landscape for the purposes of the Framework paragraph
174a. There are no protected views covering the appeal site or the wider
borough59.
68. The Landscape SoCG60 records the agreed extent of the views into the site:
“Views into the Appeal Site from the roads to the north, south and centre
(Marshcroft Lane) are heavily filtered by existing hedgerows and trees in
summer, and partially filtered in winter. There are open views into the eastern
fields of the Appeal Site from Public Rights of Way 057 and 058 (part of the
Grand Union Canal Walk) at the eastern site boundary. There are also partial
views across the central and southern fields of the northern parcel from Public
Right of Way 058. There are views into the Appeal Site from adjacent properties.
Middle distance views are relatively limited, however there are several public
rights of way (including the Ridgeway National Trail) located on the high ground
of the Chilterns escarpment to the north-east, east and south, which afford
distant partial to open views of the Appeal Site”. It describes the site as “open
agricultural…land”61, not ‘open countryside’.
69. Anything that has any value on the site, namely the substantial hedgerows on
the southern part of the site and the hedgerows and tree belts on the boundaries
53 Document CD12.8
54 Documents CD12.12 and ID77 paragraph 66
55 Documents CD7.1.5 and CD1.9 DAS: page 8 paragraph 1.1
56 Document CD12.2 page 2 paragraphs 2.2-2.4
57 Document CD12.2 page 2 paragraph 2.5
58 Document CD12.2 page 2 paragraph 2.6
59 Document CD12.2 page 2 paragraph 2.9
60 Document CD12.2 paragraph 2.13
61 Document CD12.2 page 2 paragraph 2.3
Page 17
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
of the site, will be retained and enhanced as part of the landscape-led approach
to designing and master-planning the scheme62.
70. The western extents have an urban fringe character due to the influence of the
settlement edge and Tring Garden Centre. The eastern extents are rural as the
relationship with the settlement edge is limited. The visual relationship with
surrounding countryside is not strong and, as set out in LCA 114, ‘Strength of
Character’ has a visual unity that is ‘incoherent’. There is no intervisibility with
the countryside in the immediate vicinity. There are glimpsed views of the
Chilterns escarpment from some parts of the site and partial views of the
Chilterns escarpment only from some parts of the site. LCA 114 character area
includes “The presence of Tring town within the centre of the area and the
associated urban fringe uses serves to disrupt the coherence of the area.”63
71. The urban edge, the railway station and its car park and development along
Station Road are part of the surroundings and influence the character and how
one feels about a place. It is this character that provides a sense of place, and
which forms the sensory experience in terms of what you see, smell, hear, feel
about a place. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) describes
the lack of intervisibility between the site and the heritage assets south of Station
Road resulting in them having no effect on the character of the site itself but
having an effect on the character of the site’s immediate surroundings.
72. The site is not designated for either landscape or scenic value. There is no
reference to any important views in any evidence base, save for the panoramic
views. These views are elevated from the site by some 100m in the AONB
Management Plan (Policy DP4, page 86)64, where such views will inevitably
comprise the site, but only as a limited element of the view and minimal in terms
of the vertical field of view.
73. Matthew Chard’s assessment of ‘Value’ as ‘Medium’ overall is as a result of it
being not designated, comprising relatively common components and
characteristics and with a character that is affected by its relationship to the
settlement edge of Tring which overlooks part of the site. There are only some
positive perceptual aspects, particularly with respect to partial views towards the
AONB to the north-east, south and south-west. Moreover, only the eastern
boundary of the site is publicly accessible. As such it makes a limited
contribution to recreation. Perceptions of remoteness and tranquillity
experienced within the site are also limited due to its urban fringe location. It
lacks most of the elements that give LCA 114 its high value, including the AONB,
two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), heritage features such as listed
buildings and scheduled monuments, and long distance recreation routes, as set
out in the commentary included in the Landscape Effects Table appended to the
LVIA.
74. The site’s ‘Susceptibility’, which relates to the type rather than the quantum of
development, is also ‘Medium’, given that both it and its immediate context sit
within an urban fringe landscape with an existing relationship to the settlement
62 Document APP2 page 23 paragraphs 7.14-7.16
63 Document CD4.3 Landscape Character Assessment page 83
64 Document CD6.6 page 76
Page 18
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
edge. The site’s interior is well vegetated along field boundaries, as is the
eastern boundary. There is enclosure in many places, and the landscape
structure has a good capacity to accommodate the type of development
proposed. There are moderate consequences upon the overall integrity of the
site and its surroundings. There are more key characteristics/ indicators of
landscape value that can be affected by development for NCA 110 than there are
for the local LCA. Bringing these elements together, ‘Sensitivity’ is assessed as
‘Medium’, being a combination of value of the receptor and susceptibility of the
landscape receptor to the change proposed.
75. The site was not considered of high scenic value or representing/ demonstrating
the key characteristics of the AONB by Natural England, and does not
demonstrate any of the special qualities of the AONB65. It demonstrates only
some of the key characteristics of LCA 114 Tring Gap Foothills, including negative
ones, e.g. arterial transport corridor (the Canal) and urban fringe influences (the
Tring Garden Centre). The Dacorum Landscape Character Assessment (page 83)
states that “the presence of Tring town within the centre of the area and the
associated urban fringe uses serves to disrupt the coherence of the area and
visual unity is incoherent.” It also judges both the condition and strength of
character of the Tring Gap Foothills LCA as 'moderate’. Therefore, the
‘Landscape Effects Table’ judging the LCA as having a medium sensitivity is
reasonable.
76. The appeal site has a limited and localised visual envelope due to the level
topography of the site itself, the restricted footprint of the proposed built
development and the robust boundary planting, including substantial hedgerows
and tree belts flanking the boundaries of the site66. The only open views of the
appeal site are from stretches of the escarpment within the AONB to the north-
east, where the site is seen as a small proportion of a wider panoramic view,
which is already affected by urbanising influences67. The tree belts along the
eastern boundary and the wooded areas to the south reduce the relationship of
the appeal site with the adjacent countryside, and therefore limit the effects of
the proposed development on the adjacent landscape68.
Design
77. A landscape strategy has been prepared for the site, comprising parks and
gardens, allotments, orchard fields, SuDS, formal recreation, inner parcels of
open space, sports provision, woodlands, tree planting and wildflower meadow.
Trees and hedgerows are to be retained wherever possible. A long term
management strategy via the Landscape and Biodiversity Management Strategy
(LBMS) will provide enhancement to both existing and proposed open space and
landscape features and biodiversity enhancement. Moreover, due to the
65 Document CD6.6 pages 10-11
66 Document APP2 pages 17-18 paragraphs 6.3-6.10
67 Document APP2 pages 44-45 paragraphs 10.37-10.42
68 Documents APP2 page 5 paragraph 2.5, page 17 paragraph 6.3; DBC3a Appendix 2; and
ID39: from within the AONB there is almost no view of the site within 87% of the ZTV and
only glimpsed views within 9% of the ZTV. Only 2% of the ZTV has open views of the site,
from the escarpment to the north-east only (1.1 to 1.6km away)
Page 19
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
relatively level topography there will be no need for development platforms and
there will be minimal cut and fill.
78. Over 27 ha of SANG will be provided along the eastern edge of the appeal site
adjacent to the Canal, with an additional 10.56 ha of linked semi-natural open
space that could come forward in future, linked to delivery of other
developments69. The SANG will provide a sensitive transition between the
proposed development and the wider landscape. The changes will not be
uncharacteristic in relation to its existing qualities and would respond positively
to the ‘Improve and Conserve’ guidelines and strategy as set out for the LCA 114
Tring Gap Foothills70.
79. The key elements of the design and embedded mitigation include:
79.1 Setting back of development from the eastern site boundary to create a
substantial area of open space along the canal corridor. The creation of
this buffer zone between the settlement edge and the wider agricultural
landscape will deliver links between semi-natural habitats and features.
79.2 Reinforcement of the eastern boundary of the appeal site through the
provision of a comprehensive landscape strategy within the SANG along
the eastern boundary. In tandem it will strengthen the setting to the scarp
slopes by enhancing the landscape structure through the introduction and
positive management of the existing and proposed vegetation and publicly
accessible open space.
79.3 Enhancement of green infrastructure connection through the retention of
the existing pattern of hedges and tree belts to create new features to
further enhance landscape and ecological links between, and to, the
woodlands and canal corridor to the east, north and south.
79.4 Planting of a minimum of 2,800 new trees across the appeal site in
accordance with the proposed conditions.
79.5 Creation of strategic open space that promotes recreation and public
access to the area across the appeal site, including for enhancing links
between the Grand Union Canal, the Ridgeway and other recreational
routes, as well as promoting awareness and consideration of the setting of
the AONB through educational interpretation boards.
79.6 Retention of existing vegetation along site boundaries providing physical
and visual enclosure.
79.7 Retention of vegetation and the enhancement of a green infrastructure
network along the southern boundary of the appeal site to minimise the
impact upon the heritage setting of Pendley Manor.
79.8 Consideration of height and scale of development to ensure sensitivity to
the surrounding landscape, limited to 11m above existing ground levels
across most of the appeal site and to 15m for some elements of the
69 Document APP2 page 21 paragraph 7.6
70 Document APP2 page 42 paragraph 10.27
Page 20
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
secondary school (if this is required). This is demonstrated in the building
heights Parameter Plan, with the strategy to integrate the proposed built
development using native tree and shrub species.
79.9 Promotion of an appropriate long term positive management strategy of
existing and proposed vegetation and open spaces, including a holistic
approach to drainage, arboriculture, landscape and ecology.
80. The Council does not object in respect of design matters71. Development will be
controlled at the site through a series of Parameter Plans, Regulatory Plan and
the Design Code which will guide the reserved matters submissions. The
Masterplan, Design Code, Design & Access Statement (DAS), and landscape
principles identified provide a firm foundation upon which to develop more
detailed design ideas to create a beautiful place72.
81. Development fronting Station Road has been proposed to provide natural
surveillance and security along the route between the town and the station. The
decision to place development in this location followed engagement with
members of the public which revealed that safety and security along Station
Road were and still are a key concern, particularly for women and at times
outside of daylight hours. Development alongside Station Road and the new
walking and cycling routes will transform the environment, significantly
enhancing the route’s appeal for all people walking and cycling. This will play an
important role in increasing uptake and usage of sustainable modes of transport
and reducing reliance on motor vehicles.
82. The Parameter Plan does not indicate that the development along Station Road
would be of a higher density than any other part of the development, and other
parts would be higher73. This finger of development does not meet the eastern
boundary of the site, and there remains a minimum gap of about 80m between it
and the AONB boundary along the east of the site. Development parallel with
Station Road is to be set back some 20m behind 2 layers of tree planting
consisting of the existing mature trees and a supplementary second line proposed
as successional planting to protect its long-term treed character. The
development is proposed to be broken up through the creation of green corridors
for the retention of existing hedgerows or creation of green routes with access
and views to the SANG. Passive surveillance is provided directly on to the
walking and cycling paths as the most effective way to increase perceived safety
71 Documents CD3.45a HDA 1 Landscape Comments page 4 paragraph 3.2: “The
consideration of landscape with regards to placemaking within the new development is
positive”; CD3.45a HDA 1 Landscape Comments page 4 paragraph 3.5: “the proposed
landscape design has taken the right initial approach”; CD3.45a HDA 1 page 6 paragraph 4.3
bullet 5: “The Character of the Appeal Site …there would be benefits in terms of features and
habitat”; CD3.45a HDA 1 page 4 paragraph 3.2: “The general principle of the landscape
design is well thought through.” CD3.45a HDA 1 page 4 paragraph 3.2: “The location of the
SANG is appropriate”; CD12.8 paragraph 9.19 records no objection with regard to the quality
of design, including the overall design/building heights/street types and design/landscaping
and paragraph 9.20 records how there are no substantive design matters that cannot be
addressed and mitigated by suitably worded conditions; and DBC3 page 13 paragraph 4.2.6:
“there would be beneficial effects on features within the site.”
72 Document CD12.8 paragraph 9.17
73 Document CD1.4a/Part 5 Rev A
Page 21
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
for as much of the route as possible. This will reduce the unsurveilled stretch
from 1,300m to 2 short sections of 170m and 350m. Only about 100m of Station
Road adjacent to the site will remain without passive surveillance as a result of
the finger of development not extending all the way along the southern site
boundary.
83. The development at the southern end of the SANG will be likely to be more
visible, particularly from the nearby PRoW 057. However, tree planting will help
to reduce visual prominence, particularly over time as vegetation matures. The
high quality SANG as proposed, including SuDS wetlands scrub planting, trees
and meadow, will also provide substantial visual amenity, working to draw the
eye away from built development. Built development does already exist on
Station Road with the existing Ivy Cottage being located immediately east of the
site, the presence of which impacts directly on the quality of PRoW 057 as it
passes around the rear fence.
84. There will be no vehicular access to Marshcroft Lane and this will instead become
a pedestrian and cycle link greenway into town. A primary street or central spine
road will run through the eastern part of the site from Bulbourne Road to Station
Road. At several intervals the pedestrian routes and cycleways will connect to
the primary street to improve accessibility and connectivity and encourage
sustainable and active transport. A recreational route will also be provided in the
east traversing the SANG.
85. The Council has accepted that the wording of Condition 13 will in large part
resolve its concerns regarding the lack of structural mitigation proposed74. The
extent of tree planting is already substantial and more than sufficient to
successfully soften the proposed built form, with the planting volumes allowed for
in the Parameter Plans being designed to be able to accommodate large
species75. Crown lifting will encourage growth to a greater overall height, which
will have a beneficial effect on softening/screening buildings, and the 2.5m linear
trench as part of the main spine road design will allow for tree roots to spread
along it. Additional trench width can be created beneath the cycle/ footway using
a crate system, substantially increasing the volume of soil available.
86. The SANG would be implemented early, with delivery in 2 phases prior to first
occupation for north and south of Marshcroft Lane, being completed at year 2 of
the 10 year construction period. Therefore, the SANG trees will have 8 years
growth (3.5m-7m high) at year 1 of operation and 23 years growth (8.5m-12m
high) at year 15. The intention is not to completely screen the development,
only to soften it. Moreover, there will be layering of tree planting within the
development, including existing retained hedgerows and woodland belts and the
extensive tree planting.
74 Document ID77 paragraph 88
75 Document CD1.10 Design Code Part 1 page 79: Structural spaces shown in cross sections
in Figures 57, 58 and 59 which illustrate the relationship of the proposed spine road where
there is built form on only one side and open space on the other. This is the situation where
the school playing fields are in the most sensitive part of the appeal site. Having built form
on only one side of the spine road allows for the trees that are planted on the open space side
of the spine road to reach full maturity unencumbered.
Page 22
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
87. The comprehensive landscape strategy will be covered by a holistic long term
management plan, the LBMS, which will ensure biodiversity and landscape and
amenity enhancement will derive from the scheme76. It will provide a strategy
for management and maintenance of landscaping, including existing features,
hard and soft landscape proposals, newly created habitats, ornamental planting,
native tree, scrub, grassland and wetland planting, and natural colonisation. The
LBMS will be monitored and regularly renewed and amended.
88. The proposed layout was landscape-led from the start77. The built form will be
located away from the most visually sensitive central fields of the northern
parcel. The ‘Landscape Framework’ has the most open fields, which are those
most exposed to the AONB escarpment, as playing fields and key views towards
the AONB will be retained78. The Regulatory Plan within the Design Code79 will
reinforce the Parameter Plans and show the retained landscape structure with
mandatory principles set out for landscape and open space80.
89. The site makes a limited contribution to the setting of the AONB, as it is only
visible at a long distance from a few elevated locations on the escarpment81 and
is not visible in medium distance views from the site’s more immediate context.
Moreover, the contribution to the setting of the AONB made by the open fields
within the site is limited by the varied levels of enclosure and the topography of
the site and its context. The eastern and central fields, which contribute more to
the setting of the AONB, are proposed primarily for open green space in the form
of the SANG and the playing fields.
90. The appeal proposal has had regard, where applicable, to the objectives of the
Chilterns AONB Management Plan82. It will provide a significant BNG, a
substantial improvement to pedestrian and cycle permeability, new areas for
recreation, a substantial increase to the level of vegetation, and softening and
integration of the built form within the landscape.
91. The appeal proposal has also taken into account and reflected the Chilterns
Conservation Board Position Statement on Setting, to the extent applicable,
which notes: “Many issues in relation to new development within the setting of
the Chilterns AONB can be resolved through careful design, appropriate
materials, location and layout and mitigation measures from landscaping”. The
SANG will provide a sensitive and gradual transition between the new settlement
edge and countryside beyond, facilitate and enhance recreational journeys
76 Document CD1.29
77 Over 60 ha of the site (out of the total 121 ha) will be green space; Matthew Chard
identifies built development over 40% of the site and Professor May identifies 47.15% to
include highways
78 Document CD1.9 page 44
79 Document CD1.10 pages 24 and 94
80 Document CD1.10 page 30 onwards
81 Viewpoints SCPs 4 to 7, 9 and 10, Tanya Kirk 1 to 11 and Nicola Brown 1 to 7 and 19 to 23
82 Document CD6.6 page 37 Objective NO3: “Minimise development impacts on the AONB and
its setting; where they are unavoidable, ensure they provide net environmental gains”; page
80 Policy DP10: “Make sure that all development that is permitted in the AONB or affecting its
setting delivers a net gain for the Chilterns by: on-site improvements for biodiversity,
landscape, the rights of way network, AONB visitor facilities.”
Page 23
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
between Tring and the AONB, and ensure a continued landscape buffer between
the settlement edge and the Canal83. The scheme will read as a logical extension
of Tring, softened and integrated into the landscape by a comprehensive
landscape strategy84. As such, comprehensive mitigation measures are
proposed85.
92. The settlement of Tring is already visible from the Ridgeway86, identified by
Tanya Kirk as a relatively dominant feature in the landscape87, with its core
visible in the distance88. The layout of the open spaces and specifically the green
wedges, which extend from the SANG south-westerly towards the primary street,
creates view corridors out from the development to the surrounding landscape
and high ground to the east. This allows views back from within the SANG and
from PRoWs 057 and 058 to the higher ground to the south-west, across and
over the SANG landscape89.
93. The appeal scheme responds to the landscape guidance and principles for
development set out for LCA 114 Tring Gap Foothills in the Dacorum Landscape
Character Assessment90 in the following ways.
93.1 Bullet 2 “Strengthen setting of scarp slopes”: The proposed landscape
strategy will enhance the landscape structure of the foothills by managing
and reintroducing vegetated boundary features to reduce the scale and
openness of the landscape, which is particularly apparent within the
northern parcel.
93.2 Bullet 4 “Appropriate management of woodland”: As set out in the LBMS.
83 Chilterns Conservation Board Position Statement page 6 paragraph 18: “Consideration not
just of the site but also the landscape and land-uses around and beyond it”
84 Chilterns Conservation Board Position Statement paragraph 19: “The grouping of new
structures and buildings close to existing structures and buildings to avoid new expanses of
development that are visible and out of context”
85 Chilterns Conservation Board Position Statement: “Comprehensive mitigation measures, for
example including landscaping and open space that incorporates only native species (where
possible contributing to BAP targets and the provision of Green Infrastructure), and noise
reduction”
86 Document CD3.3a page 3 paragraph 3.3: “The Ridgeway offers many wider views towards
the site and the settlement edge.”
87 Document DBC3 page 6 paragraph 4.3.7: “from [the south], the appeal site is seen behind
the existing settlement of Tring, which is a relatively dominant feature within the landscape.”
88 Document CD2.4 Committee Report paragraph 9.52: “It is noted that when the existing
settlement of Tring is viewed from the AONB, the later suburban developments comprising
Grove Rd/Grove Park area have successfully integrated into the landscape due to a large no
of structural trees/ high level of structural planting. There is also a strong treelined corridor
along the linear park at Brook St /Wingrave Rd. As such, when viewing Tring from the
Chilterns escarpment, the core settlement is visible in the distance, whereas the later heavily
planted developments moving towards the AONB are considerable softened/screened. It is
considered that the proposed development would need to follow suit to enable a satisfactory
residual impact.”
89 The illustrative layouts included within the DAS and Design Code indicate substantial scrub
and tree planting within the SANG
90 Document CD4.3 page 84
Page 24
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
93.3 Bullet 5 “Creation of buffer zones”: The SANG provides a buffer to the
Canal and the proposed landscape strategy creates links between semi-
natural habitats.
93.4 Bullet 7 “Strategy for recreation and public access”: The proposal
represents the enhancement of links between the Grand Union Canal, the
Ridgeway and other recreational routes, as the proposed SANG will offer a
greater provision of recreation along the western side of the Canal and
allow users to connect between the various routes in new ways.
93.5 Bullet 8 “Limit impact of built development”: The proposed landscape
strategy includes a minimum of 2,800 new trees to soften and integrate
the development. The landscape strategy will use native tree and shrub
species and increase the volume and quality of hedging and planting to the
perimeter, as well as an enhanced management strategy.
93.6 Bullet 11 “Promote high standards of new building”: The Design Code
(sections 8 and 9) prescribes locally traditional materials and a design that
will reflect the traditional character of the area91.
93.7 Bullet 12 “Retention of existing pattern of hedges and create new features
to further enhance landscape and ecological links between and to
woodlands, canal corridors and parklands”: The development parcels sit
within the existing field pattern and existing hedgerows will be reinforced.
The historic field boundaries will be utilised throughout the proposed
development, and the existing pattern of hedges will be conserved and
reinforced to enhance its legibility and biodiversity and amenity value. A
SANG will be created, with a further 10.56 ha made available as and when
required.
93.8 Bullet 14 “Consideration of setting of AONB”: Views towards the AONB to
the east within the appeal site have been respected and will be framed by
the proposal92. Views from the AONB will be altered by the introduction of
built form, of a high quality, and the comprehensive landscape strategy will
soften and integrate it into its landscape context, such that it will read as a
logical extension of the existing settlement.
94. The appeal site does not cover all of the Tring Gap Foothills LCA. Whilst parts of
the LCA are widely visible from the AONB, this is often in views where the appeal
site itself is not visible. Changes within the appeal site would have a very limited
effect on the wider LCA, as there is little to no intervisibility. Moreover, there are
already urbanising elements within the wider character area cited by the
Landscape Character Assessment. These include Pitstone Hill Chalk Pits, the
leisure centre and sports facilities to the south-east of Tring, Tring Bypass and
railway, new residential development and commercial warehouses at Pitstone
91 Document CD1.10 Sections 8 and 9
92 Document CD1.9 page 44
Page 25
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Village and Church End93, other industrial built form, settlements and isolated
residences and Tring Garden Centre94.
95. The SANG would provide a sensitive transition between the proposed
development and the wider landscape. The changes will not be uncharacteristic
in relation to its existing qualities and would respond positively to the ‘Improve
and Conserve’ guidelines and strategy as set out for the Tring Gap Foothills LCA.
The magnitude of change given in the Landscape Effects Table is 'very small'.
This is defined in the methodology as 'a very slight change to the existing
landscape receptor that may affect a limited area’. The change within the area of
the appeal site would affect no more than a ‘limited’ area of the LCA as it
represents about 10% of the LCA.
96. The change is limited to an area which is closely connected to the existing
settlement edge and is strongly influenced by the settlement edge character. It
would amount to a ‘very slight’ change, since it is a type of development that is
not uncharacteristic of the LCA overall, and that is highly characteristic of the
part of the LCA in which it is located i.e. adjacent to an existing town. The
magnitude of change to which LCA 114 is subjected increases by year 15 because
of the growth of planting which will have become established. LCA 114 is slightly
less susceptible (medium) to development than the NCA (medium high) because
it has a greater proportion (relative to its own size) of built elements influencing
it e.g. settlements and arterial routes95.
97. The large areas of open space delivered as part of the comprehensive landscape
strategy for the proposal would contribute to maintaining a permanent area of
undeveloped land between the eastern edge of the appeal site and the wider
countryside. This would minimise the influence of the proposed built form in the
wider landscape and integrate it into its setting.
98. The proposed development will result in a substantial increase in built form on
the site at year 1, although this will be experienced from limited locations in the
local landscape96. At the end of construction i.e. at completion (year 1) the
adverse effect will be ‘moderate to major’ and ‘negligible adverse’ for Chilterns
NCA and ‘neutral’ for Tring Gap Foothills. By year 15 the proposed
comprehensive mitigation strategy, with its positive characteristic features
introduced throughout the site, will have become established. The adverse effect
of the loss of agricultural land and openness to housing would be partly mitigated
by the reinforcement and improvement of the landscape features that contribute
to the site’s character, improving the ecological and landscape functionality of the
site and its immediate surroundings.
99. The proposed development has a limited and localised visual envelope due to the
level topography of the site and its immediate context, the restricted footprint of
93 Chilterns Conservation Board Appeal Submission paragraph 3.4.4
94 Document CD4.3 Page 80: Tring Garden Centre is noted as one of the key urban fringe
influences on LCA 114 Tring Gap Foothills
95 Document CD1.6a Appendix D.7: Effects Table
96 Document APP2 paragraph 8.8: whilst the magnitude of effect is the same at Construction
and Year 1, the significance of effect is ‘X’ at Construction and ‘Y’ at Year 1 i.e. in this case
the significance has reduced even though the magnitude has stayed the same.
Page 26
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the proposed built development and the robust boundary planting, including
substantial hedgerows and tree belts flanking the boundaries of the appeal site.
The significance of effect reduces to negligible at year 15 because of the
softening effect of the tree planting which will have become established and will
serve to integrate the development within its landscape context. The magnitude
remains the same because the change in the views is the same relative to the
baseline condition at both construction and year 15. This is noticeable, whereas
the planting reduces the overall significance of the adverse effect to barely
perceptible (negligible).
100. The Appellants have accorded great weight to the impact on the setting of the
AONB97. However, it is nonetheless important to reflect the limited extent of that
impact. The appeal site forms a very small part of the setting of the AONB
(121 ha compared to the total area of the Chilterns AONB of 83,800 ha, which
equates to just 0.0014%)98. The proposed residential built form will appear as a
natural extension to the urban edge of Tring, softened by a robust ‘Green
Infrastructure Strategy’ and the provision of SANG with its extensive planting,
which will remain as a green buffer between the new settlement edge and the
AONB99. There will be limited intervisibility, which will only be long distance.
Only about 500m of the 29,000m of mapped highways/footpaths within the
AONB will have open views100.
101. The site exhibits very few of the key characteristics of the AONB. The finger of
development along the eastern extents of Station Road would not be very
evident in views from the elevated escarpments. The appeal proposal will
therefore comply with PPG 042: “Development within the settings of these areas
will therefore need sensitive handling that takes these potential impacts into
account”. AONB policy does not preclude development in the setting of protected
landscapes. It seeks to ensure that a sympathetic design response is delivered
that is relative to the degree of protection afforded by the AONB’s valued
landscape designated status.
102. In terms of the experiential qualities of the AONB, there will be adverse
landscape effects during construction and at year 1 of operation, but these would
not be significant and would not be uncharacteristic of what is already
experienced in the wider setting. At year 15 the proposal would not adversely
affect the experiential qualities of the AONB, given the distance from the
proposed built forms and the buffer provided in the form of the SANG and other
open space.
97 Document CD6.1 paragraph 176: “Great weight should be given to conserving and
enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these
issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also
important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks
and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas
should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and
designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.”
98 Document APP2 page 48 paragraph 11.13
99 Document APP2 page 44 paragraph 10.39 and page 47 paragraph 11.6
100 Document DBC3a Appendix 2
Page 27
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
103. The only open views of the appeal site are from stretches of the escarpment
within the AONB to the north-east (SCP 4)101, where the site is seen as a small
proportion of a wider panoramic view, and which is already affected by
urbanising influences. Residential development is not uncharacteristic in views
from the AONB, and the residual effects are judged on the basis of an attractive
and well-designed settlement extension that is integrated within its landscape
context through a comprehensive landscape strategy. In most views from the
AONB102 the appeal site is seen as a very narrow band within the view, often with
the fields to the east of the site forming a much more prominent feature. The
site is seen in the context of existing built form and often to one side of the
central focus of the view103.
104. Views of the appeal site from PRoW 057 and 058 along the eastern boundary
are partial, since only part of the site is visible from this boundary104. There are
open views of only the eastern fields of the appeal site from PRoW 057 and 058,
from where views of other fields within the site are glimpsed at best105. Views of
the proposed development from PRoW 057 and 058 will be partial views, since it
will not extend into the eastern fields of the appeal site, other than the south-
eastern field, and will be filtered and partially screened by the intervening
existing and proposed vegetation106. Also, only the built form on the eastern
edge of the development parcels will be visible, and from PRoW 058 built form is
unlikely to encroach as far east in the northern parcel, since the eastern extents
of the developable area will be occupied by the playing fields.
105. Views of the escarpment to the south of Tring from PRoW 057 and 058 will not
be completely obstructed by the proposal107. The judgements arrived at in
assessing the likely residual effects are made on the basis that the full surface
area of the development parcels will not be occupied entirely by built form, and
even where built form is present, it will not always be to the maximum height
shown on the Parameter Plans. Also, the planting is similarly indicative, and is
intended to show that the proposed built form can be effectively softened and
integrated into its landscape context108.
101 Document DBC3a Appendix 3: limited to about 500 linear metres according to the
linework; which would represent about 2% of the 29km of highways and PRoW mapped as
having theoretical visibility of the site
102 Viewpoints: Tanya Kirk 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and Nicola Brown 19, 20, 21, and 22
103 Viewpoints: Tanya Kirk 6, 7, 10 and 11; and Nicola Brown 19, 21 and 22
104 Viewpoints: SCP 1, SAPs A, B and F
105 Viewpoints: SCP 1, SAPs A, B and F
106 Documents COG1 Appendix-1 page 5 paragraph 2.9 “There are open views from the
footpath looking across the southern half of the site, but generally curtailed by the hedgerow
pattern.”; DBC3 page 15 paragraph 4.3.3 “The residual view [from the southern extents of
PRoW 57 on the eastern boundary of the southern parcel] would not be unpleasant”; CD3.45a
page 6 paragraph 4.4 “Footpaths to the east of the Appeal Site (057 and 058) – I agree that
the mitigation proposed would reduce the adverse effects”
107 Document CD1.6a Appendix D.6: The wireframes were generated by extruding the
development parcels to the heights shown on the parameter plans, and as such they
represent a worst case scenario for the visibility of the development
108 Document CD1.6a Appendix D.6: The wireframes
Page 28
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
106. There are only three key receptors in disagreement between the Appellants’
Environmental Statement (ES) Chapter and the Council’s expert regarding
significant adverse residual effects, which are agricultural fields109; LCA 114 Tring
Gap Foothills110; and ‘Pedestrians on the Ridgeway at Pitstone Hill’ in the
AONB111. The ES Chapter takes into account the secondary mitigation shown in
the illustrative Masterplan112 and the Council’s expert does not113. Only one
residual adverse visual effect was originally considered to be firmly above the
significant threshold (Pedestrians on the Ridgeway at Pitstone Hill). If this is
reduced by the structural planting condition, it will either be on the threshold or
below it.
107. Spatial and visual harm will arise, but the proposed development will not result
in unacceptable harm to the landscape features, character and visual amenity of
the local area. The proposed development is not uncharacteristic. There will be
limited adverse effects on the visual amenity of receptors in the vicinity of the
site. The proposed development will lead to tangible long-term benefits on the
landscape features of the site and character and general amenity of the local
area114.
Highways
108. Following legal agreements to deliver the new bus route, off site highways,
footpath and cycleway improvements and station forecourt improvements being
secured, reasons for refusal 6 and 7 regarding highways have been addressed.
There remains a residual dispute about which access layout should be preferred.
It is between the layout with a 40mph speed limit115 (Appellants) or a 50mph
speed limit (HCC). However, this is not in itself a basis for refusal, or for a
finding of ‘other harm’ for the purposes of paragraph 148 of the Framework.
There is no objection from any qualified statutory consultee and there is support
from West Midlands Trains (WMT)116. Improvements to the station forecourt are
part of a package of wider transport improvements that would deliver significant
benefits to the existing and new communities117.
109 Document DBC3a Appendix 2 Table: ES Chapter: negligible adverse; Tanya Kirk:
moderate adverse
110 Document DBC3a Appendix 2 Table: ES Chapter: negligible beneficial; Tanya Kirk:
moderate adverse
111 Document DBC3a Appendix 2 Table: ES Chapter: negligible adverse; Tanya Kirk:
moderate adverse
112 As per GLVIA3 paragraphs 4.21 to 4.23
113 Document DBC3 page 18 paragraph 5.5: “…placing reliance on a mitigation strategy that
has not been committed to.”; and GLVIA3 4.21 to 4.23 provides: “As they are not
incorporated [i.e. guaranteed] in the scheme being assessed there will need to be careful
consideration of how they can be secured.”
114 Document APP2 page 48 paragraph 11.14
115 Document ID38 and Councillor Symington in cross examination supported a 40mph speed
limit
116 Documents ID29 and ID62
117 Scott Witchalls in cross examination and examination in chief; and Document APP10
paragraph 4.7.3: “Whilst the need for a comprehensive upgrade to the station facilities is not
triggered by the development, it is recognised that some improvements are required and they
would deliver benefits to both new residents and existing communities.”
Page 29
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
109. With regard to the speed limits, Station Road currently operates to the
national speed limit along the site frontage and to the east and west of the site, it
operates to a 30mph limit. Both the 40mph and 50mph schemes have been
subject to Stage 1 Safety Audit. The primary difference relates to the loss of
trees, through the greater land take required for the 50mph layout. HCC’s
preference for 50mph, required through its Speed Management Group, is not
supported by any minutes of a meeting or rights to appear at the meeting. It is
based on current average speeds of 42mph eastbound and 43mph westbound
and relies on the 85th percentile speed recorded as at 49mph in both
directions118. National Guidance and HCC’s Speed Management Strategy state
that average speeds should be used in considering appropriate speed limit
changes119. The new junction, of itself, will deliver a significant change in
character to Station Road, thereby leading to a reduction in vehicle speeds120. It
is likely that a better decision would be made when the Speed Management
Group revisit the speed limit once the houses are put in place121.
110. The planning application was supported by a comprehensive assessment of the
impact of the proposed development on the highway network122. It has been
agreed with HCC that with the improvements proposed, particularly those
promoting modal shift, the residual impact on the road network is not severe123.
HCC has also agreed that any potentially negative traffic impacts have been
mitigated124. The development is in an already sustainable location which will be
further enhanced by the comprehensive package of transport measures and
improvements proposed on and off site, as well as new on site facilities and
services to benefit existing and new communities125.
111. With regard to Peter Davidson’s evidence, he has not produced a Transport
Assessment (TA) of his own, even though he is still practising in transport work.
He cites only the impact on the road network and gives no consideration to the
policy-compliant substantial package of pedestrian and cycle improvement
measures which, in conjunction with public transport improvements, will negate
the need for sweeping road capacity improvements. The Appellants’ consultant,
Stantec UK Limited (Stantec) agreed all methodologies and data used in the TA
with HCC, as well as a comprehensive set of surveys and use of all available
data. The results and conclusions of the TA, the Addendum TA and subsequent
technical notes were all presented to HCC and they have been checked/audited
by its transport specialists, concluding that the proposed mitigation package is
appropriate and that there are no highways objections to the proposal.
112. Stantec applied a factor to the observed traffic data to account for a lower
number of trips being made during the pandemic period, as agreed with HCC.
The traffic surveys were undertaken in November when travel patterns for
118 James Dale cross examination and Scott Witchalls examination in chief
119 Scott Witchalls cross examination and Document CD6.63 Section 5.3
120 Document CD6.63 paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2: a reduction of 2mph would be expected with
signage and further reduction achievable once the junction is added in
121 James Dale in cross examination accepted that this is likely to happen
122 Document CD1.11 Transport Assessment
123 Document CD12.9 Transport SoCG page 7 paragraph 3.3(9)
124 Document CD12.9 Transport SoCG paragraph 1.3 and Section 3.3
125 Document CD12.9 Transport SoCG Section 3: HCC agrees
Page 30
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
employment and education are typical, and therefore there is no reason why the
data would not be appropriate126. Most of the sites selected in the Trip Rate
Information Computer System (TRICS) database were standalone housing sites
with no other land uses included and so all trips for retail and education purposes
would be ‘external’ to those sites and not included. The internalisation process
has been agreed with HCC and the resulting trip rate used by Stantec is higher
than that for the TRICS site, which did include some internalisation of trips.
113. Journey time surveys were not requested by HCC/WSP127 and would have been
disproportionate for the task requested. They would also have been of little use
in determining trip assignment without an extended network being surveyed, and
journey times being recorded on a regular basis for greater reliability and then
‘back-cast’ to the 2014 base year128. With regard to car parking, the proposal
focuses on providing high quality sustainable transport infrastructure to ensure
that a car trip is not the default choice. These measures include contributions
towards the provision of additional cycle parking at the town centre and the
station. Where the spine road bisects Marshcroft Lane, crossing facilities will be
provided to ensure the safety of non-motorised users and the speed limit will be
20mph129.
114. The COMET modelling was considered extensively in the TA Addendum130 and
reasoning offered around the model’s behaviour as part of the overall assessment
approach agreed with HCC. The base data (majority dataset) for the COMET
model is from 2014 and its reliability and robustness can reduce, especially when
there have been changes since its validation. Moreover, ‘strategic’ models, even
up-to-date ones, should only be used as a tool/guide for testing a wide area.
Developing a transport strategy only on the results of a strategic traffic model, is
a short-sighted strategy which leads to prioritisation of vehicle traffic, rather than
the opportunities to enhance movement for pedestrians and cyclists, and would
exacerbate the inherent weaknesses in the model used131.
115. The impacts of the development on major junctions have been shown to be
insignificant132. The increase in flow leads to some small increases in delay, and
some degradation in ‘Volume to Capacity Ratios’ as would be expected when
126 Scott Witchalls in examination in chief and affirmed by HCC in its acceptance of the data
127 WSP are consultants who had been commissioned by HCC to test the transport impact of
the development proposal in its Transport Model Report Document CD1.11a Part 2
128 Recognised by WSP in Document CD1.11a Part 2 page 13: “It was deemed with the
timescales provided the checks and work conducted on the network and improvements in the
model resulted in a proportionate improvement. Throughout the recalibration process the
impact on wider model performance was monitored and showed that generally the model was
fairly stable outside of the wider Tring area”
129 Scott Witchalls in examination in chief
130 Document CD1.11a Parts 1 to 3
131 Document CD1.11a Part 2 page 12: “This is a limitation of the transport model and the
change in flow between base and future should be used in junction performance assessments
and applied to observed turning flows around this locality rather than turning movements
from the transport model”; page 34: “SATURN is a strategic model and to understand the
impacts at a local junction level it is advised detailed junction modelling is undertaken, using
the SATURN modelled flows and observed counts, to assess the impacts in detail”
132 Document CD1.11a Part 2 WSP report page 53
Page 31
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
adopting a ‘predict and provide’ car traffic growth approach. Just because a
junction is theoretically at capacity in the future (before development is added),
this does not mean that the development must increase its capacity, especially
where the impact is minor as is the case in the appeal. The strategic model has
been used to identify areas on the network where further detailed analysis may
be beneficial. This is a process that Stantec followed, resulting in ten junctions
being assessed in detail and mitigation being developed at three locations.
116. With regard to the new proposed bus service, it is accepted that the journey
time for some passengers will increase, but the population served will increase
and the frequency of the service will also increase from one bus every two hours
to two buses per hour. This will deliver a significant improvement in the bus
service overall.
117. In terms of car parking, the development proposal focuses on providing high
quality sustainable transport infrastructure to ensure that a car trip is not the
default choice. These measures include contributions towards the provision of
additional cycle parking at the town centre, a new pedestrian/cycle crossing
adjacent to Tesco, and a new bus service to Tesco. Other options, including on-
line ordering/home delivery and visiting Tesco by car at less busy times of day
would be practical alternatives.
Agricultural Land
118. The site has been surveyed twice in 2013 and 2017 in accordance with
Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) guidelines, and the report of a survey,
dated March 2022, formed an appendix to the ES133. The proposal would use
116.7 ha of agricultural land (as well as some non-agricultural land), of which
only 59 ha is Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land134. Most of the land is Grade 3a
(41.2 ha – 34%) or Grade 3b (57.7ha – 48%), with the remainder Grade 1 land
(2.3 ha – 2%), Grade 2 land (15.5 ha – 13%) and Non-Agricultural Land (4.3 ha
– 3%)135. The agricultural land quality is mostly limited by soil wetness and/or
workability. It has a high clay content that delays drainage into the chalk
below136. This means that it takes longer to start growing crops and makes the
site not very flexible for cropping137. The farmer has described both the Station
Road land to the south and the Grove Farm land to the north as some of the
poorest performing land farmed within the overall holding138.
119. The proposal’s agricultural land, which represents about 0.7% of agricultural
land in the Borough139, is also estimated to represent 0.7% of the BMV land in
the Borough140. The appeal site produces below-average yields of crops of wheat
133 Document CD1.6a
134 Document APP13 page 5 paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, Figure 1 Distribution of ALC at the
Appeal Site and Figure 2 Provisional ALC in Dacorum Borough
135 Document APP13 page 4
136 Alastair Field examination in chief
137 Alastair Field examination in chief
138 Document APP13 page 6 paragraph 4.5
139 Document APP13 page 5 paragraph 3.2
140 Document APP13 page 5 paragraph 3.3: based on estimating the total area of BMV land in
the Borough at approximately 8,500 hectares on the assumption that the Provisional Grade 3
land is divided evenly between Subgrade 3a (BMV) and Subgrade 3b (non-BMV)
Page 32
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
and barley in which the country is largely self-sufficient141. The economic
benefits of retaining the site for food production are minimal and pale into
insignificance against the economic benefits that will arise from the construction
and occupation of the site by the proposed development142.
120. The harm will be at the very lowest level (negligible), and thus there will be no
‘other harm’ for the purposes of paragraph 148 of the Framework143, even
though the ES’s grading of the impact on loss of agricultural land was ‘major
adverse’. The ultimate decision on weight must be situated within the context of
the policy144, and the available evidence (agricultural land quality, proportion of
land within the Borough and economic value, e.g. taking into account yield).
Ecology
121. The Council and the Appellants are in full agreement that there will be no
‘other harm’ for the purposes of paragraph 148 of the Framework in respect of
ecology145, and that the proposal complies with all relevant policies in the DP in
respect of ecology. There is no objection to the proposal from any of the
relevant consultees: Natural England, Hertfordshire Ecology, and both of the local
Wildlife Trusts (Herts & Middlesex and Berks, Bucks & Oxon – BBOWT).
122. There are no statutory designations on the site, only two non-statutory Local
Wildlife Sites on adjacent land: Grand Union Canal and Station Road/ Grove Road
Fields. The site’s habitats comprise mainly arable fields and improved grassland
of low intrinsic ecological value. There is a network of woodland, trees and
hedgerows but this has been considered in detail in formulating the proposal.
The main species identified on site are bats (nine species including Barbastelle)
and breeding birds, plus a Barn Owl in the north of the site. However, there was
no identification of Badgers, Otters, Water Voles, Dormice, Reptiles and Great
Crested Newts.
123. With regard to the management arrangements for the proposed SANG and
financial sums for SAMM to mitigate recreational pressure on the Chilterns
Beechwoods SAC146, both Natural England and Hertfordshire Ecology are satisfied
that sufficient information and clarity has been provided by the Appellants, hence
the absence of any objection. The Appellants are committed to providing a fully
141 Document APP13 pages 6-7 paragraphs 4.6-4.7
142 Document CD2.4 Committee Report, page 44 paragraph 9.444: “Overall, the loss of
agricultural land is regrettable and would have some negative impacts, as previously
identified. However, when viewed against the requirement for new housing and the other
economic and social benefits that would arise from this development (e.g. employment,
housing and education – see Section 6 of the Environmental Statement for full list of
socioeconomic benefits) it is not considered significant enough to warrant a reason for
refusal.”
143 Document APP15 page 71 paragraphs 11.21-11.23 and page 75 Table 11.1
144 Document 6.1 paragraph 174
145 Documents CD12.8 paragraph 7.2; APP15 page 71 paragraph 11.25; and DBC5 page 26
paragraphs 6.1-6.3
146 Document APP11 pages 22-25 paragraphs 6.2-6.17: describes the SANG and SAMM
proposals in full, notably explaining the SANG’s structure and scale, the careful preparation of
the proposals and the extent of consultation with Natural England (a matter further addressed
at his Chapters 8 and 9)
Page 33
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
functioning SANG prior to occupation of the first units. The SANG has been
designed to Natural England’s criteria, in full consultation with it. Natural
England is satisfied that the SANG would act as an intercept site for the SAC147.
Both Natural England and Hertfordshire Ecology are satisfied with the SANG
proposal to the extent that they have withdrawn their objections. There is also
no evidence as to adverse effects on other sites (Tring Reservoirs, the Grand
Union Canal and College Lake) and Natural England, Hertfordshire Ecology and
the Wildlife Trusts did not object on these grounds.
124. The SuDS have been designed to be fit for purpose148. The SANG
Statement149 makes clear that the attenuation basins will not prevent access to
the main paths or loops, and that the footpath treatments will be such that
routes will not become waterlogged. Equally the Draft SANG Management Plan
provides further clarity as to the route and monitoring150. Natural England and
Hertfordshire Ecology have no concerns on drainage.
125. The SANG Guidelines stipulate a car park standard of one parking space per ha
and therefore the SANG will have a minimum of 27 spaces151. In practice, use of
the car park would be monitored as part of SANG management, and its location
allows for an extension over time if needed.
126. The mitigation measures do not rely on bird and bat boxes and Hedgehog
Gateways. These are additional features over and above the significant habitat
enhancements and management to be delivered through the scheme, including
the SANG, the additional semi-natural open space and the green infrastructure.
Wildlife will be able to make use of all these features. All trees with potential
roost features are to be retained and incorporated into the ‘Green Infrastructure
Strategy’152. The lighting design will ensure that such trees are not illuminated.
The inclusion of a lighting strategy can be secured by condition153.
127. The hedgerows and treelines on which the Barbastelle bats were recorded are
to be retained and not subject to adverse lighting conditions. Moreover,
additional habitats will be provided in about 27 ha of what is currently intensively
managed arable fields that will be converted into new species-rich grassland,
trees, scrub and waterbodies as part of the SANG, and a further 10.56 ha of
semi-natural open space that may come forward as SANG in due course, as well
as an orchard. These will significantly increase foraging resources for bats, since
they will encourage far greater numbers of invertebrates than currently use the
intensively managed arable land. The SANG and semi-natural open space will
not be lit. They are immediately adjacent to the wooded corridor of the Grand
Union Canal and are easily accessible to bats using the wider countryside.
147 Document APP11 paragraph 8.5 referring to Natural England's letter at Appendix 6
(Appendices page 292)
148 Document APP14
149 Document CD 1.28
150 Draft SANG Management Plan paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16
151 Document CD1.28 SANG Statement paragraph 3.2.2
152 Document APP11a Appendix 1 paragraph 5.3.14 and Appendix 2 paragraph 5.3.13
(replicating similar statements in the earlier documents)
153 Document ID75
Page 34
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
128. While small losses to existing hedgerows for access are inevitable, these areas
will be integrated into the green infrastructure for the site. Some bat species
may be discouraged from using parts of the new residential areas, but the new
high-quality habitats to be established in open arable fields that are currently
poor for foraging will compensate for this. The design of the scheme is such that
these new high quality foraging areas will be contiguous with existing high-
quality areas off-site, and there will be no fragmentation of habitat in that sense.
129. The approach to construction would ensure that active nests are not disturbed.
The Ecological Assessment explains that, notwithstanding the presence of the
noted bird species within the site, the habitat itself is not remarkable and
extensive similar habitats remain available in the immediate vicinity. The new
SANG and semi-natural open space will offer new and replacement habitats to
declining bird species.
130. Checks of the habitats were undertaken across the survey period154. A
background data search was completed, and there was nothing to suggest that
rare or notable species would be present. While the site supports a good
hedgerow network, it is overwhelmingly an intensively managed arable landscape
and subject to regular and sustained pesticide input. Any invertebrate interest
would be focused on the hedgerow and tree network, and these features are
being retained. New and enhanced habitats, including ponds, are to be provided
in the SANG and wider semi-natural open space. These will provide greater
opportunities for invertebrates.
131. The intrinsic value of most of the habitats present is low. It is generally
recognised amongst professional ecologists that intensively managed arable and
improved grassland fields are of limited intrinsic interest. The assessment of
generally low ecological interest is not ‘counterclaimed’ within the assessment.
The hedgerow network is to be retained and enhanced as part of the green
infrastructure of the appeal scheme. The Appellants are committed to providing
a 10% net gain in hedgerows, even though they accept that the gaps established
for access would represent a degree of harm. The SANG and semi-natural open
space will offer significant new habitats for a range of invertebrates and other
species, with a planting list comprised of native species and seed mixes. A BNG
of circa 35% is projected for habitat units. No trees with potential roost features
for bats are to be removed, and bat boxes to be provided will offer new roosting
opportunities immediately.
132. The Grand Union Canal and the Ashridge Estate will not be adversely affected
by the appeal scheme, and neither will the habitat connectivity to these areas.
The new habitats of the SANG and other semi-natural open space will be
contiguous with this wider environment. Natural England, who has the statutory
duty in respect of the Tring Reservoirs SSSI, did not object and nor did any of
the other statutory consultees. The position is very similar for College Lake,
managed by BBOWT155, which has not submitted an objection before the Inquiry.
The SANG will provide a significant new resource for easily accessible recreation,
immediately available for new residents.
154 Documents CD1.26b paragraph 2.3.1 and CD1.26a
155 BBOWT’s response to the Scoping Opinion was noted and effects on College Lake were
considered in the ES
Page 35
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
133. The LBMS is a long-term strategy, which will be reviewed on a five year basis.
There is not a requirement for a more detailed specification as to management
measures. Further details will be set out in the management plan required by
the condition.
134. Neither Elizabeth Hamilton, nor the Rule 6 Party, nor any other member of the
public has provided any robust evidence of ‘other harm’ in respect of ecology
matters, for the purposes of paragraph 148 of the Framework.
Built Heritage
135. The parties agreed that the appeal scheme is consistent with the policy
requirements of the Framework and the relevant DP policies156, which is a
position that is supported by all relevant qualified consultees, including Historic
England, the National Trust, the Canal and Rivers Trust and the Hertfordshire
Gardens Trust157. Whilst the minor level of less than substantial harm must be
considered in accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings etc)
Act 1990 and weighed accordingly, the level of harm is not at a level that directs
towards anything other than the grant of permission.
136. The appeal scheme will only cause harm to the significance of the following
five identified built heritage assets: (1) Pendley Manor Lodge (Grade II)158; (2)
Pendley Manor Stables (Grade II)159; (3) Ivy Cottage (non-designated heritage
asset)160; (4) the adjacent section of the Grand Union Canal (non-designated
heritage asset)161; and (5) Pendley Manor Park and Gardens (non-designated
heritage asset)162. There will be no impact on Pendley Manor itself163, nor on any
other identified heritage asset. The Tring CA is 1.5km away from the appeal site,
with the later 20th century developed areas intervening and there will equally be
no impact upon it164.
137. It is agreed that that the level of harm to the five identified built heritage
assets would be no greater than low within the spectrum of less than substantial
harm165. The proposed development, as set out in the Parameter Plans, will be
set back from each asset, whether by Station Road to the south: Pendley Manor
156 Documents CD12.8 page 25 paragraph 12.6 and CD2.4 Committee Report page 73
paragraph 9.726
157 Documents CD3.14 Historic England Representation; CD3.31 National Trust
Representation; CD3.7 Canals and Rivers Trust Representation; CD3.23 Hertfordshire
Gardens Trust Representation; APP12 pages 2-3 paragraphs 1.19-1.29 for the Committee
Report references; CPRE Hertfordshire pages 159-162; CD3.5 The Chiltern Society pages
153-159; Tring Town Council pages 275-276; and Grove Field Residents Association pages
471-472
158 Document APP12 pages 6-7 paragraphs 3.16-3.22
159 Document APP12 pages 7-8 paragraphs 3.23-3.29
160 Document APP12 pages 8-9 paragraphs 3.30-3.35
161 Document APP12 pages 9-10 paragraphs 3.36-3.43
162 Document APP12 pages 10-11 paragraphs 3.44-3.50
163 Document CD1.19 page 11 paragraph 3.3.29: Setting & Significance, and paragraphs
4.2.11-4.2.12: No impact on significance
164 Jonathan Smith examination in chief
165 Documents CD12.8 page 25 paragraph 12.2 and CD2.4 Committee Report page 73
paragraph 9.723
Page 36
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
assets and Ivy Cottage; or by the SANG/open space: Ivy Cottage and Grand
Union Canal, ensuring in all cases a negligible impact on legibility. There will be
no more than a minor impact on the significance of each asset, within the scale
of less than substantial harm, with a negligible impact on the Grand Union Canal,
which is in a cutting.
138. The Council has agreed that the less than substantial harm noted would be
outweighed by the appeal scheme’s public benefits166. Compliance with the duty
under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings etc) Act 1990 to have
‘special regard’ to harm to significance, requiring great weight to be accorded to
any level of harm, will ordinarily be ensured by the application of the national
policy tests, now comprised in paragraph 202 of the Framework for designated
heritage assets167.
139. Regarding the extension to the area of Ashridge’s National Park and Garden,
the main parties are in agreement that it does not materially affect the views
previously set out with regard to the planning application, ES and consideration
by Members, or the evidence provided to the Inquiry on heritage matters168.
Flooding & Drainage
140. It is agreed that matters regarding flood risk, drainage and ground conditions
are not a basis for refusal of the scheme169. There is no objection from any
qualified statutory consultee.
141. Following the ‘Flood Risk Assessment’ and ‘Sustainable Drainage Strategy’170,
it was identified that the appeal site is not at significant flood risk from any
source. It is located entirely within Flood Zone 1 (low risk) and there are no
recorded historic incidents of flooding at the site. The only potential residual
flood risk is from surface water (pluvial) sources, with a relatively low risk. The
ground conditions were also identified as suitable for the use of infiltration
measures171.
166 Documents CD2.4 Committee Report page 73 paragraph 9.725; and CD6.1 paragraphs
202 (designated assets) and 203 (non- designated assets)
167 Court of Appeal in Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243, paragraph 28 (referring to the
2012 Framework paragraph 134, as the predecessor to the current Framework paragraph
202): “Paragraph 134 of the NPPF appears as part of a fasciculus of paragraphs, set out
above, which lay down an approach which corresponds with the duty in section 66(1).
Generally, a decision-maker who works through those paragraphs in accordance with their
terms will have complied with the section 66(1) duty. When an expert planning inspector
refers to a paragraph within that grouping of provisions (as the Inspector referred to
paragraph 134 of the NPPF in the Decision Letter in this case) then – absent some positive
contrary indication in other parts of the text of his reasons — the appropriate inference is that
he has taken properly into account all those provisions, not that he has forgotten about all the
other paragraphs apart from the specific one he has mentioned. Working through these
paragraphs, a decision-maker who had properly directed himself by reference to them would
indeed have arrived at the conclusion that the case fell within paragraph 134, as the
Inspector did.”
168 Document ID59 Third Supplemental Main SoCG
169 Document CD12.8 page 24 paragraph 11.4 and Appendix 2
170 Documents APP14 page 4 paragraph 3.1 and pages 4-7 paragraphs 3.4-3.12; and CD1.22
Flood Risk Assessment
171 Document APP14 page 7 paragraph 3.12
Page 37
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
142. Whilst members of the public may describe the site as ‘waterlogged’ at times,
this does not constitute a flood risk in planning policy terms and is instead a
design consideration not uncommon to greenfield sites on clay rich soils. It also
has little bearing on what can be achieved on site172. It is proposed to utilise
SuDS within the development to direct development drainage to new landscaped
infiltration basins within the proposed SANG. No development drainage flows will
leave the wider site by overland flow, and instead all flows will be directed to the
ground, after suitable vegetated treatment, thereby matching the existing
drainage regime173.
143. Reasons for refusal on drainage and flooding have been resolved. In
discussion with JBA, the Appellants undertook additional soakaway (infiltration)
testing in the proposed location of sustainable drainage basins174; and hydraulic
modelling of the surface water flood route, to better define existing flood routing
and extents and to demonstrate how these can be safely managed within the
proposed development. Direct rainfall modelling was also undertaken, at the
request of JBA, to consider both off site flows and flows within the site, to ensure
surface water routes are sufficiently accounted for within the development.
Alongside making suitable allowances for climate change, this work included
additional sensitivity testing undertaken with a 20% increase in off-site flows to
account for potential follow-on storm events. Results identified that there is
sufficient storage within the SANG such that flows could be managed whilst not
impacting existing and/or proposed properties in these extreme flood event
scenarios175.
144. With regard to the impact on the Grand Union Canal, the proposed infiltration
basins are located a minimum of 30m from the canal embankment176.
Comparing levels at the basin and the canal embankment confirms that this
standoff is sufficient to ensure that there will be no impact on the stability of the
canal embankment. In extreme storm conditions there are no above ground
flood flows leaving the SANG area in existing or proposed conditions. Surface
water drainage in the area drains to the ground in both existing and proposed
scenarios and as such there will also be no impact on the downstream feeder
reservoirs, as the development does not significantly alter the drainage regime.
The flows to the Canal will remain unchanged177.
145. In terms of surface water flooding, the SANG is an entirely appropriate area
for drainage to be located178. The area proposed for the SANG is already shown
to be at potential risk from surface water flooding in extreme rainfall events179.
The site naturally drains towards the SANG. There will therefore be no significant
impact in hydrological terms. Outside of the dedicated drainage basins, the
wider SANG’s use would only be impacted in very extreme rain occurrences, and
this has been factored into the design of the SANG and the footways. The basins
172 Stuart Nelmes examination in chief
173 Stuart Nelmes examination in chief
174 Document APP14 pages 6-7 paragraphs 3.9-3.12 and pages 8-9 paragraphs 4.3-4.4
175 Document APP14 pages 8-9 paragraphs 4.1-4.9
176 Document APP14 paragraph 6.2
177 Document APP14 page 10 paragraph 5.4
178 Stuart Nelmes examination in chief
179 Document APP14 page 14 paragraph 6.4
Page 38
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
have been sized based on best practice180. The public walkways would be set
back from the basins and a range of signage and barrier planting measures would
ensure safe demarcation181. The development proposal will drain the land more
efficiently than at present.
146. With reference to the Groundsure report that is appended to the Phase 1 (not
the Phase 2) Geo-Environmental Assessment182, the mapping is based on an
extreme 1 in 100-year event. The area is shown to be subject to ‘Moderate-High’
risk of groundwater flooding, with the High risk being only shown in small,
isolated patches. Other mapping, including that within Hertfordshire’s own Local
Flood Risk Management Strategy 2019–2029183, indicates a lower risk from
groundwater for the same location. Both data sources are based on generalised
widescale mapping and are superseded by the site-specific Geo-Environmental
Assessment and site investigation undertaken by the Appellants. The
development will deal with residual risk from groundwater through a standard
increase in levels, using the construction depth and raised finished floor levels,
and formal drainage of the development area.
Benefits
147. The benefits are properly understood as 12 individual components: Market
Housing (560 dwellings)184; Affordable Housing (630 dwellings)185; Self-Build
Housing (Up to 70 plots)186; Extra Care Housing (140 units)187; Socio-Economic
Benefits (employment generation)188; Schools and Education (new primary and
secondary provision)189; Recreational and Sporting Benefits190; Community
Facilities191; Sustainable Transport Benefits192; Ecology193; High Quality
Design194; and Sustainability195. In addition, there is the Local Plan Failure, as
none of these would be delivered without a grant of permission at appeal196.
Benefit of Market Housing and Housing Land Supply
148. The Appellants and the Council are agreed that in light of the housing land
supply position, the contribution of the proposal to housing needs should be
accorded ‘very substantial weight’197. Large windfall sites like the appeal site are
180 Document APP14 page 14 paragraph 6.4
181 Document APP14 page 15 paragraph 6.7
182 Document CD1.23 page 74
183 Document CD 6.23 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2019 – 2029 (February 2019)
184 Document APP1
185 Document APP3
186 Document APP4
187 Document APP5
188 Document APP6
189 Document APP9
190 Document APP15
191 Document APP15
192 Document APP10
193 Document APP11
194 Document APP7
195 Document APP8
196 Document APP15 page 68 paragraph 11.4 and page 75 paragraphs 11.45-11.46
197 Document ID60 Table 4
Page 39
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
needed to address the housing crisis and support the instruction to significantly
boost the supply of housing. In January 2023, the Centre for Policy Studies
(CPS) published a report which analyses the importance of housebuilding and the
implications of not providing enough homes in the right places198.
149. The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing
land supply against its local housing need and a 5% buffer199. The current level
of shortfall is more than 4,000 homes, which is likely to increase until such time
as the Council adopts a new local plan, which is at least 2 years away200. The
difference between the two parties is only the extent of the supply. Following the
Round Table discussion, the Council submitted a technical note201 setting out its
revised position on what it considers the deliverable supply at the base date,
which is 2,828 dwellings202. The Appellants consider the deliverable supply is
2,293 dwellings203.
150. The reason for the difference between the two positions of 535 dwellings is
because the Appellants dispute the build rate on one site204, contests the
inclusion of three other sites205 and removes the major sites’ windfall
allowance206. The Appellants consider that:
a. The Council has failed to have regard to the significant constraints of the
Chiltern’s Beechwoods SAC and the need for compensatory provision of SANG
to be in place prior to the occupation of any new dwellings on sites that did
not have the benefit of full planning permission at the base date207.
b. The Council has not provided the required clear evidence for the inclusion of
sites with live planning applications for major development on allocated sites
that do not currently have the benefit of planning permission208. Extracts of
emails does not constitute clear and robust evidence but is the ‘best that the
Council has got’209.
c. Their position is supported by previous appeal decisions210.
198 Document CD6.59 pages 15-16
199 Document DBC1 page 3 paragraph 1.6
200 Ronan Leydon in cross examination
201 Document ID16
202 Document ID16 table at paragraph 1.3
203 Document CD12.1 page 13 table at paragraph 5.0
204 Spencer’s Park, Phase 2
205 National Grid Site, London Road; Land at Marchmont Farm, Hemel Hempstead; Miswell
Lane, Tring
206 Document APP1 Page 35 paragraphs 6.49 and 6.50
207 Document CD10.1 page 26 paragraph 3.5.5
208 Document CD6.1 paragraph 66
209 Ronan Leydon in cross examination
210 Document APP1 pages 30-35 paragraphs 6.15 – 6.36 e.g. Document CD11.27 pages 12-
13 paragraphs 55-58: the Great Torrington appeal decision where the Inspector noted that
clear evidence is more than just being informed by landowners, agents or developers that
sites will come forward, rather than a realistic assessment of the factors concerning the
delivery has been considered
Page 40
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
d. The Council has not provided the compelling evidence necessary for the
inclusion of a major windfall allowance211.
151. Spencer’s Park, Phase 2212: a revised build rate put forward by Homes England
in an email dated 23 January 2023213 fails to recognise that there are number of
pre-commencement conditions and non-material amendment applications
remaining to be discharged/ determined. The application for a non-material
amendment to the application triggers the requirement for an appropriate
assessment of the proposal under the Habitat Regulations and provision of
compensatory SANG in advance of any of those new homes being occupied.
There is no evidence from the developer to support the assertions set out in the
email, and this does not comprise the necessary evidence to demonstrate that
the revised timeframe is realistic, or that housing delivery will commence in
2023.
152. LA1 Land at Marchmont Farm214: the site is the subject of an outline planning
application with a resolution to grant consent subject to a section 106
agreement. The Council is unable to say how long the section 106 negotiations
will take, which includes a requirement for the delivery of on-site SANG
necessitating an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations and the
involvement of Natural England in the preparation of a SANG Management Plan.
There is no indication that a developer is on board or that reserved matters are
being prepared. An email from Homes England refers to a tentative timetable215.
153. H/15 Miswell Lane, Tring216: whilst a planning application has been submitted
for development of a residential care home on the site, that application remains
undetermined and there are a number of outstanding matters. Revised plans
were submitted to the Council on 9 March 2023. The site is allocated for 24
dwellings in the adopted DP. The Council has not provided any evidence that the
proposal, which departs from the draft allocation, is acceptable and when the
application will be determined. There is no supporting evidence from the
potential developer confirming firm progress towards delivery of the scheme in
the event planning permission is granted.
154. H/2 National Grid Site, London Road217: the site is the subject of a current
application for full planning permission for 425 homes, which is 75 dwellings
more than the local plan allocation. There are unresolved technical constraints,
and there is no agreed date for taking the application to planning committee218.
211 Document CD6.1 page 19 paragraph 70
212 Document CD12.11 page 11 paragraph 4.1: Deduction of 120 dwellings
213 Document DBC1a Appendix C: the email from Homes England states- “NB: these figures
are subject to change depending on when the developer achieves House Build
Commencement as a milestone”
214 Document CD12.11 Annex A page 24: Deduction of 198 dwellings
215Email from Homes England notes that the timetable is “reliant on positive engagement
from DBC with regards to progressing the OPA ad RM application timetables……and await
confirmation that the planning programme is achievable”
216 Document CD12.11 Annex A page 29: Deduction of 39 dwellings
217 Document CD12.11 Annex A page 27: Deduction of 75 dwellings
218 Document DBC1a Appendix C page 42: notes that the applicants are currently developing
their own bespoke SANG solution
Page 41
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
There is no indication of what that SANG solution comprises, whether Natural
England agrees with the proposal and when it will be delivered. The land
comprises a former gas works and significant remediation is required before any
housing development can commence on site219. There is a two-line extract of an
email from the applicant’s planning consultant agreeing to the Council’s
suggested trajectory for delivery on that site. There is no clear evidence when
permission will be granted, or when any dwellings will be subsequently delivered.
155. Windfalls: the major sites windfall delivery rate fell significantly to just 40
dwellings in 2022, and this was before the Beechwoods SAC moratorium was put
in place220. The Council has been unable to identify any new major sites that
have a realistic prospect of delivery within 5 years; each of the sites identified221
is constrained due to the inability to provide SANG or flawed in some other way,
such as design, over-development or inability to provide a satisfactory residential
environment. The constraint on SANG is particularly important222.
156. The Appellants’ evidence is that the deliverable supply is 2,293 dwellings,
which against the local housing need and a 5% buffer equates to 1.77 years223.
There is a significant shortfall of 4,165 dwellings in the five year HLS. It
represents a substantial deficit224. The scale of this shortfall increases the weight
to be afforded to the benefit of new housing and must reduce the weight that can
be accorded to any restrictive policies, where applicable.
157. The Council will be unable to demonstrate a deliverable five year HLS until
such time a new plan is in place225. Other measures to increase housing delivery
will only result in modest numbers of dwellings being brought forward226. The
latest housing delivery in Dacorum, at the base date of 1 April 2022, confirms an
undersupply of 1,016 against a requirement of 3,061 over the previous 3 years,
which represents 66% delivery227.
158. The Appellants have provided clear and compelling evidence of their ability to
deliver homes on site within 5 years to make a meaningful contribution towards
the five year HLS228. The Appellants control the whole site and there will be no
delays due to land assembly or equalisation agreements. Redrow are a major
housebuilder and have been fully engaged in the planning and master planning
process. A planning condition commits to submitting the first reserved matters
219 Ronan Leydon in cross examination accepted that remediation and viability for
development of the site is a material consideration that should also be taken into account
220 Document DBC1 page 15 paragraph 4.31
221 Document DBC1 page 17 paragraph 4.40
222 Section 106 Planning Obligation round table session: the Council’s Solicitors commented
that the Council has only identified SANG to meet existing commitments and that further
SANG will inevitably be needed
223 Document APP1 page 37 paragraph 6.51
224 Document CD11.22 page 10 paragraph 56: reminiscent of the circumstances in the Kennel
Lane, Billericay decision where the Inspector concluded there was an acute shortfall of
housing land supply
225 Document APP1 page 20 paragraph 4.38
226 Document APP1 page 21 paragraph 4.43
227 Samantha Ryan examination in chief
228 Documents APP1 Section 7 paragraph 7.6 and APP1a Appendices SAR2 and SAR3;
Samantha Ryan examination in chief and cross examination
Page 42
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
application within 12 months. The highways access and other enabling works,
including provision of the SANG, can progress during that time. The proposal will
directly deliver SANG on site in accordance with a scheme that has already been
agreed by Natural England229. Both the bilateral section 106 Agreement with the
Council and the Unilateral Undertaking (UU) have been agreed. There is no
likelihood that construction on the appeal site would be halted or constrained
significantly across the breeding season.
159. With regard to the availability of other land, the urban capacity of the Borough
is significantly lower than the potential capacity230. The Table to show the
potential of all sites includes those with major constraints e.g. in the Green Belt
and AONB. The quantum of dwellings that cannot be accommodated within the
existing urban area is 7,370 dwellings231.
Benefit of Affordable Housing
160. The Council and the Appellants are agreed that the provision of affordable
housing across a range of different tenures is a benefit to be accorded very
substantial weight. The scheme involves an enhanced level of affordable
housing232 consisting of a mixture of rented (social and affordable rent), First
Homes and other routes to home ownership (Intermediate affordable housing) in
accordance with the definition of affordable housing in the Framework. There are
known affordability issues in Dacorum and there is no early prospect of affordable
housing needs being addressed. A signed section 106 Agreement is in place.
161. Evidence to support the extent of the housing crisis and the needs for
affordable housing in Dacorum is provided in the following documents233: House
of Commons Debate (October 2013)234; Bleak Houses: Tackling the Crisis of
Family Homelessness in England (August 2019)235; Denied the Right to a Safe
Home – Exposing the Housing Emergency, Shelter (May 2021)236; Unlocking
Social housing: How to Fix the Rules that are holding back building, Shelter (April
2022)237; Rising cost of Living in the UK, House of Commons Briefing Report
(November 2022)238; Briefing: Cost of Living Crisis and the Housing Emergency,
Shelter (September 2022)239; ‘Homes for the Future’ Housing Strategy 2019 to
2021240; Prevention of Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2020-
2024241; and ‘Delivering for Dacorum’ Corporate Plan 2020 to 2025242.
229 Document APP1a Appendices SAR2 and SAR3
230 Document CD7.20.1 page 50
231 Document APP1 paragraph 4.26 and paragraphs 4.28-4.31
232 It is the largest single application for the delivery of affordable homes that James Stacey
has presented in over 100 appeals
233 Document APP3a Appendix JS5: Chapter 3 and 4
234 Document APP3a Appendix JS5
235 Document CD6.27
236 Document CD6.31
237 Document CD6.28
238 Document CD6.29
239 Document CD6.30
240 Document CD10.3
241 Document CD10.4
242 Document CD10.5
Page 43
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
162. There is an acute need for affordable housing in Dacorum Borough which is not
being met. This is exacerbated by the ‘Right to Buy’, which is resulting in an
average of one dwelling lost per three new completions243. Dacorum is a
borough that has experienced serious and persistent shortfalls in the provision of
affordable housing across the entire CS period from 2006 to the present. The
future deliverable supply of affordable housing is only a fraction of what is
needed to meet needs. All this is against a backdrop where lower quartile house
prices cost 14.49 times lower quartile earnings, 1,449 households have qualified
for the Council’s housing register, and average house prices in Tring East are
more than double those in England244.
163. The planning system gives far too much of a voice to the objectors of
development, and far too little to the beneficiaries, as recognised in previous
appeal decisions245. The need for accelerated affordable housing provision
pervades national and local policy. The 2020 Local Housing Needs Assessment
(LHNA) sets out a requirement of some 611 affordable dwellings per annum
(dpa) from 2020/21 to 2035/36 which has not been, and is not being close to
being, met246. The average net delivery is just 92 affordable homes per annum
over the 16 years. Compared to the needs in the 2016 Strategic Housing Market
Assessment (366 homes per annum) the scale of the shortfall is 2,390 homes247.
164. From the analysis provided by the Council248 there are just 912 affordable
homes in the pipeline. Even if all the affordable homes were to be delivered in
the next 5 years, it would only average 182 homes, made worse if the prevailing
rate of ‘Right to Buy’ losses continue (47 per annum). The committed dwellings
are equivalent to less than one-and-a-half years’ worth of the identified need in
the LHNA 2020249. A step-change in affordable housing delivery in Dacorum is
desperately needed250.
165. With regard to the amount of affordable housing to be provided, there is no
requirement to provide a viability assessment where there is a section 106
agreement in place and the affordable housing offer is in excess of policy
requirements. There is no requirement to demonstrate that any tenure should
have been increased. The Appellants’ affordable housing offer is generous and
exceeds policy requirements.
Benefit of Self-Build Housing
166. Both parties are agreed that the provision of up to 70 self-build housing units
is a benefit to be accorded very substantial weight, which is reflected in another
243 Document APP3 paragraph 6.28
244 Document APP3 paragraph 11.27
245 Documents CD 11.38 IR paragraph 8.123 Inspector Stephens in the Pulley Lane,
Droitwich Spa appeal: “Needless to say these socially disadvantaged people were
unrepresented at the Inquiry.”; and APP3 paragraph 11.20
246 Document APP3 Figure 6.6: shows a shortfall of 850 affordable homes in just 2 years
247 Document APP3 Figure 6.5
248 Document APP3a Appendix JS3: the future supply of affordable housing
249 Document APP3 paragraph 7.6
250 Document APP3 paragraph 7.6
Page 44
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
appeal decision251. Central Government promotes self-build as another way to
get on the property ladder252. It has been more than a decade since the 2011
Housing Strategy for England set out the Government’s ambition to grow this
sector which stated: “The Government wants to make building your own home a
mainstream housing option – an affordable way of building a place people are
proud to call home.”253 The 2017 Housing White Paper stated that: “The
government wants to support the growth of custom build homes.”254 The
December 2019 Conservative Party Election manifesto reaffirmed the current
Government’s commitment to the growth of this sector in stating that it will:
“Support community housing by helping people who want to build their own
homes find plots of land and access the help to buy scheme”255.
167. The importance placed upon this sector of the housing market by the
Government is demonstrated in a series of documents, including the August 2020
Planning for the Future White Paper256; the 30 October 2020 announcement by
the Secretary of State for Housing, Robert Jenrick MP, of a review of the Right to
Build legislation to make it easier for people to build their own home257; the
Chancellor’s announcement of £2.2 billion of new loan finance to support
housebuilders including delivering ‘Help to Build’ for custom and self-builders
through the November 2020 Spending Review258; and further revisions to the
Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding section of the PPG on the 8 February 2021,
which provided guidance for the first time on how councils can record suitable
permissions towards their statutory duty259. In April 2021 the Government
announced an Action Plan intended to scale up delivery and provide funding
support for self and custom builders260 and more recently, the ‘Bacon Review’
made a series of recommendations to the Government for scaling up the self-
build and custom housebuilding sector261.
168. Paragraph 61 of the Framework sets out that in determining the minimum
number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local
housing need assessment262. Paragraph 62 states that within this context, the
size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community
should be assessed and reflected in policy, including “people wishing to
commission or build their own homes”, with footnote 28 of the Framework
detailing that: “Under section 1 of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act
251 Document CD11.31 land behind 31-33 The Causeway, Steventon Inspector McGlone page
5 paragraph 26 attributed substantial weight to the provision of 7 plots that would help meet
demand arising from the current base period.
252 Martin Stickley in cross examination
253 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 page 1 paragraph 1.7
254 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 page 7 paragraph 1.37
255 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 page 17 paragraph 1.68
256 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 page 18 paragraph 1.70: “we wish to…support innovative
developers and housebuilders, including small and medium-sized enterprises and self-
builders”
257 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 page 18 paragraph 1.74
258 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 page 20 paragraph 1.78
259 Document APP4 pages 8-10 paragraph 038 Reference ID 57-038-20210508
260 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 pages 22-25
261 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 page 26
262 Document APP4 pages 7-8 paragraph 2.35
Page 45
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire
serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom house building.
They are also subject to duties under sections 2 and 2A of the Act to have regard
to this and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the
identified demand.”263
169. LPAs are required to address this through granting sufficient development
consents to meet the demand for Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding arising
within their administrative area and examining secondary data sources in
addition to their Register numbers in order to obtain a robust assessment of
demand264. There are no adopted DP policies relating to self-build and custom
housebuilding provision265 despite being prepared in the context of the original
2012 Framework266 and the 2015 Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act (as
amended). Policy DM8 of the Emerging DLP made a requirement for new
development of 40 or more dwellings to have 5% of the house plots on site
available as serviced building plots to enable the delivery of self and custom build
properties267. The 2020 Custom and Self-Build Demand Assessment Framework
(2020 DAF) forecasts demand for 68 plots per annum in the first 5 years, rising
to 74 per annum in years 6-10 and 78 per annum in years 11-17, which equates
to 1,291 plots268.
170. Once taking account of emerging proposed allocations providing residential
development above the threshold, that are not for flatted developments and/or
have live applications/ permissions that do not include any provision for self and
custom build plots, the policy, if successfully applied, would yield 433 serviced
plots over the period269. When including the 70 plots that would be delivered at
the appeal site this figure increases to 503 plots over the plan period or 28 plots
per annum270. Given that the Council has delayed a Regulation 19 consultation
on the Emerging DLP, it will not come close to meeting the needs identified in the
2020 DAF for some time, if ever, without sites such as the appeal site. The
importance of giving due consideration to future supply was addressed in a
recent appeal decision271.
171. The Council’s ‘Self-Build Register’ cannot predict longer term demand for plots
and is therefore only part of the picture in robustly assessing demand272. The
263 Document APP4 page 7 paragraph 2.34
264 Document APP4 page 42 paragraph 6.5
265 Document APP4 page 11 paragraph 2.54 and Martin Stickley in cross examination
266 Document APP4a Appendix AG1 page 2 paragraph 1.10: This required local authorities to
plan for people wishing to build their own homes
267 Document APP4 page 6 paragraph 2.26
268 Document APP4 page 16 paragraph 3.28
269 Document APP4 page 29 paragraph 4.24
270 Document APP4 page 29 paragraph 4.25
271 Document CD11.31 Pear Tree Lane, Euxton, Chorley page 13 paragraph 62:
“Even so, and treating the Buildstore demand figures with caution, the evidence clearly
indicates that the 5-year supply of self-build plots in the borough is likely to fall well short of
the anticipated demand. As such the provision of a further 18 self-build and custom
housebuilding plots on the appeal site would make an important contribution to the need for
this type of housing”
272 Document APP4 page 22 paragraph 3.62
Page 46
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
2020 DAF states that: “The scale of demand shown by registers can be as much
a reflection of the approach taken to promoting CSB [Custom and Self Build]
locally as a pattern of local demand. Whilst it can be a useful indicator of
demand it is not useful as a long term planning tool.”273 The only way the
Council has publicised its register is through its website274. A national survey in
2020275 revealed that 8 out of 10 people are still unaware that councils keep a
register of people interested in buying a development plot in the local area for a
self-build and custom housebuilding project276.
172. The parties agree that the 2020 DAF applies the recommendations of the
PPG277 to undertake a robust assessment of demand for self-build and custom
housebuilding in Dacorum, and that in doing so, it identifies a sizeable level of
demand which has not yet been reflected in the Council’s Self-Build Register278.
173. Data from a range of secondary data sources in line with the recommendations
in the PPG provide an indication of demand for this type of housing, which is not
currently being met. The 2020 DAF figure sits within this range and the figures
identified “should not be viewed as maximum”279. It identifies a sizeable level of
demand which broadly aligns with the Buildstore figure and is yet to be reflected
in the Council’s Self-Build Register. Buildstore holds the largest database of self
and custom housebuilding in the UK and its data280 showed that on 29 November
2022 there were 282 people on their ‘Custom Build Register’ seeking an
opportunity for a custom-built home and 974 people on their ‘Plot-Search’
platform seeking a serviced plot of land to build or commission their own home in
Dacorum. This data is cross-checked by Buildstore281 which means that,
cumulatively, there were a total of 1,256 people looking to self or custom-build
within the Borough.
273 Document CD7.19 page 3 paragraph 6
274 Document APP4a Appendix AG2 page 15 paragraph 14; and Appendix AG3 page 8
paragraph 012: The PPG states “As a minimum, it is recommended that relevant authorities
hold and regularly update a web page that is dedicated to self-build and custom
housebuilding. Relevant authorities are encouraged to consider additional innovative
methods of publicising their register to increase awareness of it such as hosting events.”
275 Ipsos Mori polls commissioned by NaCSBA between 2014 and 2020
276 Document APP4 page 22 paragraph 3.60
277 Documents APP4 page 9 paragraph 2.43; APP4a Appendix AG3 page 8 paragraph 011: The
PPG states “Local authorities should use the demand data from the registers in their area,
supported as necessary by additional data from secondary sources (as outlined in the housing
and economic development needs guidance), to understand and consider future need or this
type of housing in their area.”; and APP4 page 18 paragraph 3.40: PPG paragraph 003
reference ID 67-003-20190722 states that: “In order to obtain a robust assessment of
demand for this type of housing in their area, local planning authorities should assess and
review the data held on their register. They should also supplement the data from the
registers with secondary data sources such as: building plot search websites, ‘Need-a-Plot’
information available from the Self Build Portal, and enquiries for building plots from local
estate agents.”
278 Document CD7.19 page 7 paragraph 9
279 Document CD7.19 page 4 paragraph 12
280 Document APP4 page 19 paragraph 3.42
281 Document APP4 page 19 paragraph 3.43
Page 47
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
174. Buildstore data found on 29 November 2022 demand for 55 registrants on
their Custom Build Register who are wishing to create their own homes within
Tring Parish (20% of Borough-wide demand) and 200 Plot-Search subscribers,
who are searching for a plot to purchase within that location to either build a
home or commission one to be built for them within the Parish (21% of Borough-
wide demand). This results in a current total demand for 255 plots within Tring
Parish (18% of Borough-wide demand). The importance of secondary data
sources has been regularly recognised by Inspectors in appeal decisions282.
175. The appeal site is providing a level of provision in line with the requirements of
emerging Policy DM8. The Emerging DLP also identifies that: “the Council’s
evidence on custom and self-build housing identifies that annual demand
outstrips the supply of such housing in Dacorum. It adds weight to the need for
larger sites to provide for a proportion of custom and self-build housing.”283 The
appeal site is the only proposed allocation with a live permission/ application that
makes any provision for self-build plots284. The proposed location of the self-
build plots would ensure they are built out in a timely manner285. The Council
has until 30 October 2023 to meet a shortfall of 36 plots against Base Period 5
demand286. The Appellants have made a commitment to make the 70 plots
available in the early phases (2 and 3) of the development at Condition 11(9).
Benefit of Older Persons Housing
176. Both parties are agreed that the Older Persons Housing component should be
accorded very substantial weight. In the PPG, under the heading ‘Why is it
important to plan for the housing needs of older people?’, the first point made is
that the need to provide such housing is ‘critical’ and the reasons given are
because people are living longer lives, society as a whole is ageing, and the sheer
numbers involved e.g. the number of people aged 85 and over, an age group
282 Documents CD11.30 land at Pear Tree Lane, Euxton Inspector Hayden page 13 paragraph
60: “The PPG advises that data on registers can be supplemented from secondary data
sources to obtain a robust assessment of demand. The Buildstore Custom Build Register, the
largest national database of demand for self and custom build properties, has 185 people
registered as looking to build in Chorley, with 699 subscribers to its PlotSearch service. Data
from a national survey conducted by Ipsos Mori for the National Custom and Self-Build
Association, when applied to Chorley’s population, indicates that as many as 1,929 people
may wish to purchase serviced plots in Chorley over the next 12 months” and “They provide
evidence of a greater level of demand for self-build than the Council’s register shows.”; and
CD11.1 land off Bullens Green Lane, Colney Heath Inspector Masters pages 11-12 paragraph
50: “the Planning Practice Guidance advises that local authorities should use the demand data
from registers, supported by additional data from secondary sources, to understand and
consider future need for this type of housing in their area.” Paragraph 51: “neither authority
has an up-to-date assessment of likely future demand for this type of housing in line with the
planning practice guidance” and “the appellant provided detailed evidence in relation to the
Custom Build Register, none of which was disputed” and found “taking into account other
secondary data sources, these shortfalls may well be on the conservative side”.
283 Document CD7.1 page 59 paragraph 14.14
284 Document APP4 page 29 paragraph 4.21
285 Accepted by Martin Stickley in cross examination
286 Document APP4 page 28 paragraph 4.12
Page 48
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
more likely to need some kind of care and support as well as specially designed
housing to live independently, will double by mid-2041287.
177. ‘Extra care housing’ or ‘housing-with-care’, the specialist housing type
proposed as part of the appeal development, is the only one of four specialist
housing types defined by the PPG that allows residents to live independently with
the benefit of care and support services available on site, 24/7288. The wider
benefits of such housing include better health and wellbeing; improved quality of
life; reduced pressure on, and associated cost savings for, health and social care
services; and it helps to free up market housing289.
178. 27,100 people aged 65 and over live in Dacorum, which is 17% of the total
population, of whom 4,000 are aged 85 and over. The latest projection is for the
population aged 65 and over to reach 37,800, which is 23% of the Borough’s
total population, by 2040, including 6,500 people aged 85 and over290. At
present, 6,700 to 12,100 older people in Dacorum require care and support to
varying degrees, with numbers projected to steadily increase over the next
twenty years to 17,300 older people by 2040291.
179. The only approach to comprehensively address planning for specialist housing
need is set out in ‘Housing in Later Life’292 by applying the target provision rates
published therein293. This is preferable to the Council’s assessment, which is
constrained by current levels of provision294. Even on the Councils’ terms, the
current shortfall in Dacorum’s supply of extra care housing is significant and
increasing295. The minimum requirement is for an additional 609 ‘Market Extra
Care’ units and 305 ‘Affordable Extra Care’ units by 2040, of which 384 market
and 192 affordable units are currently needed. Dacorum’s development pipeline
is comprised of one ‘Extra Care’ housing development of 103 ‘Market Extra Care’
housing units with planning permission and expected to be operational later in
2023. In addition, an application submitted in 2022 for about 69 ‘Extra Care’
units of accommodation, tenure unknown, is yet to be determined296.
Socio-Economic Benefits
180. The Council agrees with the Appellants that the socio-economic benefits of the
appeal proposal are to be accorded significant weight. The additional and wider
socio-economic benefits to those in addressing housing need are297:
180.1 ensuring a more vital age profile in Tring, addressing the accepted
challenges associated with an ageing population;
287 Documents CD2.2 and APP5a Appendix 4 page 1: PPG ID: 63-001
288 Document APP5a Appendix 4 page 2: PPG ID: 63-010
289 Document APP5a Appendix 4 paragraphs 4.18-4.34
290 Document APP5 page 5 paragraph 3.1
291 Document APP5 page 5 paragraph 3.5
292 Document CD6.42
293 Documents APP5 Section 2 and APP5a Appendix 4: endorsed at Appeal and EiP
294 Documents APP5 page 13 and CD8.1 page 153 paragraph 7.47
295 Document APP5 page 14 paragraph 5.8
296 Document APP5a Appendix 7
297 Document APP6
Page 49
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
180.2 addressing challenges facing businesses in recruiting and retaining labour
(Tring, Dacorum and Hertfordshire), including increased opportunities for
businesses in Tring to source labour locally;
180.3 improving health and well-being of new residents and existing residents,
with specific reference to identified more vulnerable groups;
180.4 generating new employment opportunities, both through construction and
operation; and
180.5 increasing retail and leisure expenditure to help support the vitality of the
town centre.
181. The methodology used to calculate quantifiable benefits has been agreed by
the Council, along with the quantified outputs298. Beyond issues and challenges
associated with housing need or social infrastructure provision, the socio-
economic challenges that currently face Tring include an ageing population, those
facing businesses in recruiting and retaining labour, and health and wellbeing
issues in the Borough, particularly for more vulnerable groups299. The economic
contribution and spending power of new households will represent a considerable
benefit to Tring and the wider locality300. The Framework and the Government’s
‘Levelling-Up Agenda’ both attach significant importance to the generation of
economic benefits301, which remains the case in the Framework consultation
proposals302.
182. The number of Tring’s residents aged 65 or above has doubled over the last
forty years (1981–2021) and the rate at which its population profile is ageing is
increasing. Over the same period those aged 20–49 have reduced in number by
9% and those aged 19 and under by 10%. There is very slow growth in the
population overall303. In contrast to previous periods of growth the town has
seen a very modest number of new homes of any tenure, but in particular
affordable homes, added to its supply. The average price paid to purchase
housing in the town has risen by 79% between 2011 and 2021, exceeding the
64% growth recorded in Dacorum where median house prices now equate to
over 14 times median earnings304. Rents have risen by some 35% between 2013
and 2021. It is apparent that the availability of stock has not been able to
respond to the changing needs of households in the town. There are increasing
numbers of households within Dacorum unable to have their housing needs met,
and this is in many cases detrimental to their health and wellbeing.
183. Tring has a successful and growing business base305 and is an established
employment location306, with it and the surrounding area accommodating some
298 Document CD12.8 pages 21-23 paragraphs 10.0 and 10.3
299 Document CD12.8 pages 21-23 paragraphs 10.1.2 and 10.1.2.0–10.1.2.3
300 Document APP6 page 1 paragraph 1.6
301 Document APP6 page 16 paragraphs 4.3-4.8
302 Document APP6 page 17 paragraph 4.12: Framework Consultation Paper Chapter 11
paragraphs 3, 5 and 6
303 Document APP6 pages 4-5 paragraphs 2.3-2.5 and Figures 2.1 and 2.2
304 Document APP6 page 7 paragraph 2.10 Figure 2.5
305 Document APP6 page 8 paragraph 2.14 Figure 2.6
306 Document APP6 paragraphs 2.13-2.16
Page 50
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
1,030 businesses as of 2022 and about 5,650 individuals employed by businesses
in Tring as of 2021. It has a low proportion of residents claiming out of work
benefits. Only 1.7% of the town’s residents aged between 16 and 64 (125)
claimed as of November 2022, which is less than half the equivalent proportion
for England and the second-lowest rate recorded in any month since the
beginning of the pandemic. The profile of jobs in the town is oriented towards
lower paid opportunities307, but the labour-force living in the town has become
increasingly skewed towards people working in higher paid and higher skilled
occupations308. The consequence of this is that those on lower incomes are
having to pay to travel into the town to access lower paid employment.
Therefore, the accommodation of new working age residents (circa 1,735) would
reduce the need for in-commuting and improve quality of life for those for whom
“a significant proportion of their income is spent on housing costs”309.
184. As a result of its scale, the profile of housing it proposes and the social and
green infrastructure it will provide, the proposal would address the challenges in
Tring by increasing local labour to support businesses310. The proposal will
accommodate potential downsizers, freeing up larger homes in the town for
families, up-sizers including young families, freeing up smaller and more
affordable homes already in the town as well as older households with specific
needs, where it provides new ‘Extra-Care’ housing. As a result, it will offer the
opportunity to create a more balanced profile of population growth311. It will
provide for households on lower incomes, many of whom may be working in
Tring itself or in the surrounding area and who have been unable to live in the
town or have had to spend unsustainable amounts of their wages on housing
costs.
185. The accommodation of over 1,700 potential workers will offer the potential to
sustainably meet local businesses’ needs to support their vitality and enable their
growth. Support to the town’s businesses and in particular those on the ‘High
Street’ will also be provided through the additional potential spend of the resident
population, estimated at some £40.4 million per annum, a reasonable proportion
of which can be expected to be spent in the retail and leisure offer of the town.
The accommodation also offers the opportunity to make a proportionate
contribution to achieving wider economic ambitions and opportunities for
economic development, particularly those articulated by the Local Enterprise
Partnership (LEP)312. The LEP’s published evidence base has confirmed that the
issue of labour-force availability is impacting on the ability to support growth in
higher value sectors, as well as filling lower-paid but important jobs in other
sectors, e.g. the health sector313.
307 Document APP6 page 9 Figure 2.7
308 Document APP6 page 11 Figure 2.9
309 Document CD12.8 page 22 paragraph 10.1.3.0
310 Document APP6 pages 22-23 Figures 5.1 and 5.2
311 Document CD12.8 page 22 paragraph 10.1.3.1
312 Document APP6 page 17 paragraphs 4.15-4.16, citing Document CD6.37: Hertfordshire
LEP (July 2017) Perfectly Placed for Business: the refreshed Strategic Economic Plan: 2017-
2030 page 15 and CD6.38: Hertfordshire Local Industrial Strategy: Draft for consultation
(September 2019) page 33
313 Document APP6 page 18 paragraphs 4.17-4.18 and 4.20
Page 51
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
186. The development will make an important potential contribution to the health
and wellbeing of not only new residents but also those who currently live in
Tring314. Alongside the new homes, schools and the local centre, the green
infrastructure and sporting facilities will offer a benefit to both new and existing
residents. In accordance with national policy these provisions will create
enduring health and wellbeing benefits, impacting on the lives of individuals and
the economy, by assisting in supporting a healthier and more productive
workforce. This provision will be of particular benefit to those more vulnerable
households, which are identified in the Health Impact Assessment (HIA)315
including those at risk of low rates of physical activity, older persons and low-
income households, reflecting local health issues identified in the County’s Joint
Strategic Needs Assessment.
187. The proposed development will create and accommodate new jobs through its
development and occupation. Over about a 10-year period the construction of
the homes and infrastructure proposed will be expected to generate on average
about 175 gross direct FTE jobs316. These jobs will help to sustain the Borough’s
construction industry, assist in the training of new construction apprentices317,
and help provide opportunities to attract the next generation of workers into this
sector. Once complete the proposed development could accommodate around
180 gross direct FTE jobs on site, in the new schools and the local centre which
includes flexible workspace to help new households to live and work in the
town318. There will be a total net additional employment of 90 jobs locally and
140 more widely across Hertfordshire319. It will also directly support home and
flexible working320.
188. New residents will also provide the town with an estimated additional £40.4m
annual gross household expenditure321. As there is a strong level of retention of
retail spend, it will assist Tring’s High Street in its future resilience and ensure its
ongoing vitality322.
189. The Government sees the challenge of building a strong and competitive
economy as requiring a range of interventions, including a recognition that there
are challenges created in ‘richer areas’ with regards labour mobility that need to
be addressed323. The proposed development of new housing, in an economically
prosperous area that is agreed to have historically underdelivered, can help to
address this issue324.
314 Documents APP6 pages 30-33 Section 7 and CD1.16: Health Impact Assessment
315 Document CD1.16 pages 26-27 paragraph 4.60
316 Document APP6 page 28 Table 6.3
317 Document APP6 page 28 paragraph 6.23
318 Document APP6 pages 24-25 paragraph 6.7 and Table 6.1
319 Document ID24 page 1 Table 1
320 Document APP6 page 26 paragraphs 6.11-6.16
321 Document APP6 page 22 paragraph 5.15
322 Document APP6 page 22 paragraph 5.16 citing Documents CD8.6: South West
Hertfordshire Retail and Leisure Study (September 2018), Nexus Planning, Appendix C, pages
15–18 and CD7.25: Dacorum Borough Council (2020) Further Dacorum Retail Study
323 Document APP6 paragraphs 4.5-4.7 and Antony Pollard in cross examination
324 Document APP6 paragraph 4.8
Page 52
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Educational Benefits
190. The Appellants consider that the benefits of providing a new primary school
and secondary school site should be accorded significant weight325. The
development will provide both community and education facilities, which will
benefit the wider settlement of Tring and ensure that this is a genuinely
sustainable new community. The new school sites are among the largest for any
new build state school in the country. The co-location of the sports hub and
scale of new facilities, such as a full-size 3G all-weather pitch and 9 pitch fine
turn cricket square, will provide young people with access to facilities on a par
with leading independent schools. The scale and position of the school sites
provides opportunities for schools to expand and meet the changing needs of the
area over time.
191. There is a public benefit in providing the education facilities on site, configured
within the wider development and flexible to suit any changes to pupil place
planning strategy and demographics for the area326. The new primary school will
meet and exceed national school building standards, follow national school
building delivery processes, and involve HCC and end-users of the new school
throughout. The delivery commitments made by the Appellants go far beyond
the levels of commitment and detail in other section 106 agreements and provide
absolute certainty in terms of delivery standards.
192. The secondary school site would be co-located with the new sports hub
responding directly to the drivers articulated by the Council, HCC and Sport
England, as well as the promotion of dual-use facilities in the CS327. The
Appellants have evolved the sports hub and dual use sports facilities to phase the
delivery to suit the community demand and the flexibility being given to HCC in
when it decides whether the new secondary school provision should be on or off-
site.
193. The Appellants have committed to trigger points for the delivery of the new
primary school and has committed to secondary school contributions. They are
also providing extensive land for two schools and a sports hub. This amounts to
millions of pounds of investment in education, providing very high-quality
provision.
Recreational and Sporting Benefits, including Playing Pitches and Open
Spaces
194. The Appellants consider that the recreational and sporting benefits should be
accorded significant weight328. The appeal proposal will deliver land for, and full
delivery of, a MUGA, 3G sport pitch, grass sports pitches and a full 9-pitch fine
325 Document APP15 page 57 paragraph 7.49 and page 76 Table 11.2 and Professor May
examination in chief and Document ID60 Updated Table of Benefits
326 Documents APP15 pages 57-58 paragraphs 7.49-7.51 and CD11.13:
APP/C2741/W/21/3282969, North Lane, Huntingdon, York page 6 paragraphs 30-31, pages
40-41, paragraphs 179-181 and page 44–45 paragraph 196
327 Document CD4.2 page 103 Policy CS23: Social Infrastructure
328 Document APP15 pages 56-57 paragraphs 7.41-7.44 and page 57 paragraph 7.51 and
page 76 Table 11.2; Professor May examination in chief and Document ID60 Updated Table of
Benefits
Page 53
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
turn cricket facility at early phasing so that these are available for wider
community and club use. The Sports Hub building will be constructed in two
phases with a core sports hub to support the senior 3G all-weather pitch, the
MUGA and grassed pitches for community use. An extension to the Sports Hub
building will follow if HCC request the ‘Secondary School land’ for development of
new secondary school provision. This offers considerable benefits in terms of the
quality of facilities, flexibility and adaptability and is unprecedented for
developments of the scale proposed.
195. The Appellants have agreed to pay commuted sums for the sports facilities for
a period of up to 15 years. The ‘Sport and Physical Activity Facilities Strategy’ is
clear that a full size 3G all-weather pitch and a full cricket facility including
artificial wicket, scorers base and practice nets are not justified purely by the
demand from the proposed development. The enhanced facilities exceed the
quality and quantity that would be required from a development of the proposed
scale and offer wider benefits.
196. The appeal proposal will also deliver improved access to the countryside by the
provision of new footpaths and recreational routes and the improvement of the
canal towpath. The site, as agricultural fields, currently provides no public open
space and very little public right of access. The proposal would see the creation
of new open space, most of which would be always publicly accessible.
Benefits of Community Facilities
197. The appeal proposal will deliver four types of community facility329 plus a pre-
school/nursery building and land. The latter, which will provide childcare and
early years education for 0 to 4 year olds and support families, is best considered
as a community facility, given the important role it will play within the
community. It will complement nursery provision for 3 to 4 year olds that the
Appellants have committed to delivering as part of the new primary school.
There will be a community hall, with provision of facilities that will serve the
wider community to ensure it can function both as a clubhouse for the new
cricket facility, accommodate one badminton court, and be used by community
groups including as a place of worship. Orchards and allotments will also be
delivered, with early phasing to ensure that these are available for wider
community use. Collectively all these community facilities underscore and
reinforce the sustainability of the appeal proposal and should be accorded
significant weight330.
Sustainable Transport Benefits
198. The Appellants consider that the appeal proposal will give rise to significant
sustainable transport benefits331. The appeal site is already a highly sustainable
location, well-related to Tring town centre and to Tring railway station. The
Appellants have proposed significant improvements to accessibility332. The
329 Document APP15 pages 73-74 paragraphs 11.39.1-11.39.4
330 Document APP15 page 76 Table 11.2; Professor May examination in chief and Document
ID60 Updated Table of Benefits
331 Documents APP15 page 76 Table 11.2; and ID60 Updated Table of Benefits
332 Document APP10 page 5 paragraph 4.4.1 and Transport Strategy
Page 54
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
development will provide local facilities and services as well as a new primary
school and land for a secondary school, all of which will be well connected by new
pedestrian and cycle routes, thereby reducing the need to travel by car for both
existing and new residents.
199. The Appellants have had very positive dialogue with WMT, who are the
operators of Tring railway station and have sent a letter which confirms that they
will use the financial contributions provided by the Appellants to improve the
station forecourt for the principal benefit of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as
general improvements for all passengers. However, these improvements are not
essential to make the site sustainable.
200. A comprehensive package of pedestrian and cycle improvements has been
agreed with HCC, as well as the principle of a new bus route connecting the
proposed development to the town centre and Tring railway station333. A new
route for pedestrians and cycles will be provided within the site away from the
carriageway, parallel to Station Road, which will be designed to latest guidance,
lit and surfaced appropriately for year-round use in all conditions and will benefit
from good natural surveillance from the proposed new homes. Both CS Policy
CS8334 and paragraph 105 of the Framework prioritise sites where the need to
travel can be reduced and where sites are, or can be, made sustainable through
the promotion of travel by active modes first, then public transport, with motor
vehicle user needs afforded least priority. The Marshcroft transport strategy fully
accords with these goals and has been developed in dialogue with HCC335.
201. The details of off-site transport improvements and measures to be delivered
have been agreed with HCC. These encompass a raft of measures drawn from
the HCC/Dacorum Borough Council Berkhamsted and Tring Sustainable Transport
Strategy, as well as a series of additional specific measures to mitigate the
potential impact of the development. These will be delivered through the section
106 obligations in the Agreement and UU, and section 278 works directly by the
Appellants.
202. The section 278 works will comprise:
• A priority controlled T-Junction site access via Bulbourne Road;
• A signal controlled site access via Station Road;
• Improvements at Brook Street/ High Street/ London Road and London Road/
Station Road junctions;
• Improvement at Station Road/ Cow Lane/ Grove Road junction;
• Introduction of traffic signals at the A4251/ Cow Lane junction;
• A new Puffin Crossing on Station Road in the vicinity of Tring Railway Station;
333 Documents APP10 page 13 paragraph 6.3.4 and Table 6.2: considering compliance with
paragraph 104 of the Framework
334 Document CD4.2 page 55
335 Document APP10 page 11 paragraph 6.2.6 and Table 6.1 considering compliance with
Policy CS8
Page 55
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
• A new pedestrian crossing of Station Road in the vicinity of the Court Theatre;
• A new Toucan pedestrian/cycle crossing outside Tesco Superstore in Tring;
• A new cycle route along the A4251 between London Road/ Cow Lane junction
to Newground Road/ Beggars Lane;
• A junction enhancement at the junction of Grove Road and Marshcroft Lane;
• Grove Road pedestrian crossing and widened footways;
• A new cycle route between Station Road and Mortimer Hill; and
• A new crossing of Grove Road between Marshcroft Lane and Chiltern Way.
Ecological Benefits: Biodiversity Net Gain and SANG
203. The ecological benefits should collectively be accorded very substantial
weight336. The appeal scheme will deliver a BNG of circa 35% in habitat units337.
The Appellants have agreed a section 106 provision and a planning condition to
require a net gain in hedgerow units of at least 10%338. These figures exceed the
requirements of the Environment Act (which are not yet mandatory) and of
Emerging DLP policy (which requires only 10% gain)339. The SofS and the
Inspector in the decision in Rainham Kent accorded a net gain of 20% substantial
weight340.
204. The Main Metric measures what will actually be delivered and the Mini Metric
calculates the habitat enhancements necessary to deliver a basic and functional
SANG. This allows for the concept of ‘additionality’, defined in the Biodiversity
Net Gain User Guide as: “The need for a compensation measure to provide a new
contribution to conservation, additional to any existing values, i.e. the
conservation outcomes it delivers would not have occurred without it.”
Therefore, land or habitat provided as part of the development for one purpose
may serve another purpose e.g. trees and vegetation required for visual and
screening purposes will have value for wildlife; open space required by planning
policy for recreation will also offer habitat for wildlife.
205. The approach to SANG and BNG for the appeal scheme followed guidance on
the topic provided by Natural England’s 2021 SANG Guidelines341. To be
functional as a place for walkers and dog walkers the SANG would need to
336 Documents APP15 page 76 Table 11.2 and ID60 Updated Table 4
337 Documents APP11 page 27 paragraph 7.3 and CD1.27: Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment
338 Documents APP11 paragraph 7.9 and ID79: Section 106 Agreement Schedule 13 page 117
Definition of Minimum Biodiversity Increase
339 Document APP11 pages 27-28 paragraphs 7.6-7.9
340 Document CD11.3: APP/A2280/W/20/3259868, DL paragraph 35 and IR paragraph 12.204
341 SANG Guidelines page 10: “Through appropriate design and implementation BNG can
complement the purpose of SANGS. These are designed to provide more natural and diverse
green space for communities to benefit from and, consequently, delivering more effective
mitigation to alleviate pressure on SPAs. SANG is not an automatic delivery mechanism for
BNG but the two can exist on the same site. BNG on SANG is only attributable to such
habitat creation or enhancement that proves measurable additionality over and above the
minimum requirements of the SANG, demonstrated through use of the Biodiversity Metric
stipulated by the consenting body.”
Page 56
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
include grassland and screening features, but these need not necessarily be of
high distinctiveness or quality to provide a semi-natural experience. The Mini
Metric was used to establish the BNG contribution of these poor quality and low
distinctiveness habitats, to provide a figure to discount from the Main Metric, in
which higher distinctiveness and quality habitats were assessed.
206. The use of modified grassland in the SANG Mini Metric i.e. improved grassland
pasture and poor quality hedgerows and scrub is appropriate as most of the
grassland fields in the Chilterns AONB are like this, in common with large
swathes of the English countryside. Hence the new grassland in the SANG was
set to be poor quality modified in the hypothetical scenario of the Mini Metric, but
in reality it is to be a higher quality neutral grassland342. In the Mini Metric
scenario scrub in poor condition was included as a habitat that served the
screening function but was not ecologically diverse. In reality, the scrub is to be
more species-rich; this is more than the basic requirement and so can be
counted343, which is the situation shown in the Main Metric. The projected
condition status for the various habitats in the BNG Assessment have been set at
a maximum of ‘Moderate’, which is considered to be a reasonable conservative
assumption, as it will be perfectly possible in time to manage the new habitats to
achieve ‘Good’ condition.
207. The appeal scheme will deliver at least 27 ha SANG, which will be available for
new residents from first occupation. An additional 10.56 ha could be made
available for other developments locally, with delivery linked to development and
prior to first occupation344. This expanded SANG would account for 4,695 new
residents, or an additional 1,297 people above the 3,398 new residents
accounted for in the original 27 ha area. The SANG has been developed in
consultation with Natural England and meets its SANG criteria. It includes new
areas of semi-natural habitat for visitors, including areas for dog walking, and a
café. Natural England agree that the SANG would act as an intercept site for
people that might otherwise travel to the SAC345. A draft SANG Management
Plan has been prepared and the Appellants have agreed a position with the ‘Land
Trust’, an organisation with significant experience, to manage the SANG in
perpetuity346. There is therefore certainty on these aspects of the scheme.
208. The Council has produced an approach for SAMM. The Appellants have agreed
to pay the necessary tariff347. Taken together, these measures will avoid or
342 Natural England’s SANG Guidelines page 17 “Examples of Biodiversity Net Gain delivered
within a SANG: B. Planting wildflower bulbs on appropriately sited amenity grassland within a
SANG and in turn converting it to species rich meadow could be counted towards BNG.”
343 Natural England’s SANG Guidelines page 17 “Examples of Biodiversity Net Gain delivered
within a SANG: A. If an extra hedgerow was put into a SANG, not for screening purposes, this
could count. If it is put in for screening reasons, this is a key SANG feature and therefore
cannot count towards BNG unless the hedgerow was of higher distinctiveness than that
needed for screening purposes or maintained in better ecological condition, in which case it
could count.”
344 Documents APP11 page 24 paragraph 6.13 and CD1.33: Draft SANG Management Plan
345 Document APP11 page 24 paragraph 6.12
346 Documents APP11 pages 35-36 paragraphs 8.15-8.19 and APP11a Appendix 7: Letter of
Intent (6 January 2023)
347 Document APP11 page 35 paragraph 8.16
Page 57
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
mitigate any increased recreational pressure arising on Chilterns Beechwoods
SAC as a result of the appeal scheme. The Council’s SANG at Bunkers Park,
which has been accepted by Natural England as being suitable as a SANG, is an
area to which there is already a significant degree of public access and amenity.
The Appellants’ SANG goes far beyond what has been proposed and accepted at
Bunkers Park. In addition, the wider green infrastructure and additional
measures proposed, retaining most of the existing hedgerows and treelines, will
offer significant benefits for people and wildlife348. The other benefits not
recognised by the Metric, such as bat and bird boxes, will be provided as part of
the wider scheme of biodiversity enhancement349.
Design Benefits
209. The Appellants consider that the appeal development will deliver very high
built design quality and that this should be accorded significant weight350. The
development demonstrates the highest standards of design, consistent with
Government policy. The Appellants have developed a strong landscape-led
design concept, based on extensive and detailed analysis of the site and its
context, including physical features such as topography, green infrastructure and
ecological features, views, access, local character, adjacent communities and
nearby settlements351.
210. The ‘Dacorum Strategic Sites Design Guide’ (DSSDG)352 strongly influenced
the Appellants’ approach to the Masterplan, as is demonstrated through the DAS
and Design Code documents353. The comprehensive approach to ‘Observation
and Evaluation’ of Tring’s built form and open space and that of the surrounding
area has directly shaped and informed the ‘Making’ of the Masterplan for
Marshcroft. The appeal proposal will be designed around the traditional main
street, connecting important routes, with existing bus routes. Along this tree-
lined street, there will be segregated walking and cycling routes along with
specific points of interest including a local centre incorporating community uses,
defined with traffic offsets to reduce vehicle speeds, opportunities for increased
density and variety of housing typologies, all of which will help to create a special
place. Existing landscape, new planting and wildlife habitat and play or leisure
facilities will also help enhance and define these places354.
211. The appeal proposal will provide a safer and overlooked route to Tring railway
station, with segregated provision for walking and cycling, and therefore will
improve non-car use. In addition to the active travel connectivity enhancements,
the strong character of Station Road will be preserved and protected into the
348 Document APP11 page 25 paragraph 6.18
349 Document APP11 pages 25-26 paragraphs 6.20-6.24
350 Document APP15 page 77 Table 11.2 and Professor May examination in chief and
Document ID60: Updated Table 4
351 Document APP7 pages 5-8 Section 2
352 Document CD5.3a-b
353 Document CD5.3a part 1 pages 38/39
354 Documents APP7 page 10 paragraphs 3.22-3.24; CD1.10 Design Code pages 93-99 and
CD1.9 DAS pages 40-43
Page 58
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
future through the retention of the existing mature trees and supplementary
planting of successional trees355.
212. The Masterplan has adopted a ‘landscape-led’ approach, with the development
layout being defined by the existing field patterns and landscape features. Within
the site, existing hedgerows will be retained, save for breaks created to provide
access, and where possible enhanced to form a clear framework for leisure, BNG
and habitat connectivity, SuDS, play and wellbeing. Over 50% of the site will
remain green providing areas of new publicly accessible open space. The layout
of open space allows wide ‘green fingers’ to extend into the core of the scheme
providing visual and physical connectivity with the wider landscape356. Following
consultation, the proposed development was moved a clear field width away from
the Canal, to benefit from screening and leave a significant parkland space beside
the Canal357.
213. The creation of an extensive network of connected, safe and direct routes for
walking and cycling will promote active modes of travel as the first choice for
getting to, from and through the development. The landscape and open spaces
include features such as a comprehensive network of SuDS, extensive areas of
connected green space and street tree planting which will provide resilience to
severe weather events and climate change. The primary street includes focal
points at key locations along it with public transport connectivity further helping
to reduce the need and/or desire for private vehicle use. The creation of a north-
south street with most roads running east-west maximises the opportunity for
solar collection on south facing roofs. The central village square especially,
defined by communal buildings and south facing flats, provides a special
opportunity for low energy buildings, incorporating green technologies358.
214. The proposal has been accepted by the Council in terms of densities, mix, and
overall design approach and responds nationally to the requirements of the
Framework and its latest provisions in terms of design quality359. The
Masterplan, Design Code, DAS and the assembled plans therefore represent a
firm foundation upon which to develop more detailed design ideas to create a
beautiful place. There is a very high degree of certainty that the proposal will be
designed to the highest quality, as illustrated throughout the application
documentation.
Sustainable Energy Benefits
215. The Appellants consider that the sustainable energy benefits should collectively
and individually be accorded significant weight360. The appeal proposal will
deliver low carbon sustainable housing and buildings from the outset, with a 90%
355 Documents APP7 page 10 paragraph 3.23; CD1.10 Design Code pages 158-159 and CD1.9
DAS pages 46-47
356 Document APP7 page 11 paragraph 3.35, citing Document CD1.9 DAS pages 57 and 60-63
illustrating the blue/green framework within the Masterplan
357 Document APP7 page 8 paragraphs 3.5-3.6
358 Document APP7 page 11 paragraph 3.34
359 Document APP7 page 12 paragraphs 4.1-4.5, citing Document CD2.4: Report to
Committee
360 Document APP15 page 77 Table 11.2 and Professor May examination in chief and
Document ID60: Updated Table 4
Page 59
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
reduction in regulated carbon emissions against an emerging new Part L baseline
reported across the development, to be secured by condition361. The
development will therefore be highly sustainable in energy terms through a
‘fabric first’ approach, using photovoltaic cells, air source heat pumps and under
floor heating. The heat pumps will be fitted from the start, thereby avoiding any
need for a retrofit362. All of this will deliver a 90% carbon reduction against
allowable emissions, and zero-carbon ready homes from 2025 (Phase 1)363.
216. The Legislation and policy in ‘Low Carbon’ and ‘Net Zero’ is rapidly evolving but
the proposed development strategy squarely aligns with the Government’s
recently published independent review of Net Zero364. Whilst the Future Homes
and Buildings Standards (FHS) are expected to be in place from 2025, there is
limited technical detail available. The proposal therefore uses the most up-to-
date baseline for compliance (Part L 2021) to confirm the extent of the carbon
reduction. Where previous Building Regulations Part L version (2013) represents
100 ‘carbon units’ for compliance, the current compliance level (Part L 2021) is
set at 70 ‘carbon units’ against which the proposed development would generate
only 7. By comparison, the compliance level for FHS will be circa 20-25 ‘carbon
units’. The strategy for the proposed development will emit 3 to 4 times less
carbon than FHS compliant ones from ‘Day 1’, delivering performance beyond
these incoming Regulations365.
217. With regard to the Council’s position, emerging Policy DM23 was not
sufficiently ambitious for the Appellants’ vision to deliver energy efficient, low
carbon new homes and to ensure no legacy of future retrofit new homes built in
the period up to 2030. In this fashion, the appeal scheme exceeds what would
be delivered through the Emerging DLP, and in a timelier manner. The Council
has a Climate Emergency Plan but are not taking the necessary proactive steps
to deliver decarbonisation. Planning Condition 14, sitting alongside Condition
9(5) are appropriate for an outline scheme and allow the extent of the reduction
(or net zero energy balance where appropriate) to be confirmed in detail and
quantified at each reserved matters application. This approach affords the
necessary flexibility for the proposed development to respond to opportunities for
further energy demand reduction, generation and storage across different phases
as the supply chains and market for low carbon housing develop.
Local Plan Failure
218. None of the benefits will be realised without the appeal scheme since the Local
Plan is not progressing. The Council’s members are not progressing matters, the
Council has only suggested that there is a list of studies that are underway366.
The Council will not be in a position to progress allocations needed to meet its
361 Documents APP8 Section 2 and CD1.17: Energy and Sustainability Statement
362 Rebecca Lydon in examination in chief
363 Document APP8 pages 13-15 paragraphs 4.3.4 and 4.4
364 Documents APP8 page 15 paragraph 5.2.1.2 and summarised in Section 3 pages 3-5
paragraphs 3.2.1-3.2.4; and CD6.26: Mission Zero- Independent Review of Net Zero report to
Government
365 Document APP8 page 4 paragraphs 3.2-4.2
366 Document DBC1 page 6 paragraph 5.3
Page 60
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
housing need for some years to come. That is a powerful other consideration, as
it has been in other cases367.
Very Special Circumstances and the Planning Balance
219. The factors which go into making VSC do not have to be rare or uncommon to
be special368 and there is no restriction on what might be considered as an ‘other
consideration’369. Ministerial statements have indicated that housing need will
not normally or usually be sufficient to demonstrate VSC370, but this is not stated
in the Framework and it is to ensure that unmet housing need will not become
the sole reason for allowing a proposal in the Green Belt. To do so might
undermine the Green Belt given the sheer enormity of unmet need, especially
across London and the Home Counties. However, the Appellants’ case on VSC
has never proceeded on the basis of just housing need alone.
220. The chronic and acute housing needs of the area are a key component of the
benefits of the scheme capable of making up a major component of the
Appellants’ VSC case. There is a severe shortage of new homes in the Borough;
a failure to meet the housing delivery targets; a chronic shortfall in 5 year
housing land supply; severe affordability problems; a virtual collapse in the
delivery of affordable housing; new housing development which has been almost
non-existent at Tring for the past two decades; the almost complete absence of
Extra Care homes for elderly people; and an emerging shortfall in the delivery of
Self Build and Custom Build Homes. The proposal would deliver 45% affordable
housing and hundreds of social rented, affordable rented, intermediate and First
Homes.
221. Other benefits of the proposal in addition to the very extensive housing
benefits include the following:
a. the site’s location between the edge of the town and a mainline railway
station with a very high frequency service into London Euston371;
b. the provision of at least a 27 ha SANG capable of delivering 1,400 homes in a
Borough which is struggling to find solutions to the European protected SAC
issue that is hindering housing delivery;
c. the provision of an extra 10.56 ha of land to expand the SANG to over 37 ha
which is capable of ensuring the release of additional housing in the Borough,
especially the planned development around the sustainable town of Tring;
d. the provision of a new primary school built and paid for by the developer, and
allowing for future expansion;
e. the provision of land for a secondary school expansion as well as a 7 figure
financial sum to facilitate that expansion;
367 Document CD 11.22 DL paragraph 54
368 Wychavon DC v SSCLG and Butler [2008] EWCA Civ 692
369 Brentwood BC v SSE [1996] 72 P&CR 61 and Document CD11.15 paragraph 31
370 Written Ministerial statements from Greg Clark and Brandon Lewis
371 Document 6.1 paragraph 142: the location is something that cannot be replicated across
most of the Green Belt and is enough to create the very special circumstances needed to
avoid its replication across the wider Green Belt
Page 61
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
f. the socio-economic benefits of the proposal for Tring where there are real
problems emerging in terms of sustainable work patterns and other features
necessary to create an effective and socially cohesive community;
g. making access to the station much safer especially for women, the young and
the elderly;
h. the provision of a very extensive Sports Hub;
i. the provision of community facilities;
j. the financing of excellent bus facilities linking the site to the high frequency
mainline railway station within minutes;
k. the commitment to creating homes which are highly sustainable and well
designed;
l. a commitment to a minimum 30% BNG; and
m. the Council’s very comprehensive evidence base for the Emerging DLP which
has identified the site as suitable for development.
These benefits are coupled with the absence of an up-to-date local plan, making
plan-led development impossible in the Borough.
222. All the benefits of the proposal collectively combine to create the VSC in this
case. The Council accepts each benefit except one and gives many of them
substantial or significant weight372. These are weighty factors in the scales.
They are VSC for a grant of permission. On all questions of harm, the Council
can never get beyond its acceptance that the site can be released without
unacceptable harm. The evidence base and conclusion in support of an allocation
in the Emerging DLP are very powerful material considerations.
Conclusion
223. For all the above reasons, the appeal should be allowed.
7 The Case for Dacorum Borough Council
I have reported the case on the basis of the closing submissions373 with additional
references to the evidence submitted prior to and during the Inquiry. The following
is the gist of the material points made.
The Required Approach to the Decision
224. The appeal should be determined in accordance with the statutory DP unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. If the SofS finds that VSC have been
demonstrated, he will in effect have found that any conflict with the DP has been
clearly outweighed. If the SofS is not so satisfied, the appeal proposal would
represent unjustified inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to the
DP and such is the very strong presumption against, the proposal must be
refused permission.
372 Document ID60: Updated Table 4
373 Document ID77
Page 62
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
225. As to the VSC balance, the words ‘very special circumstances’ as used in
paragraph 147 of the Framework indicate that the bar is a very high one. That is
not surprising as the Green Belt is a designation of national importance, and the
strength of its protection must reflect that374. The Courts have held that the
requirement for the demonstration of VSC before inappropriate development is
sanctioned in the Green Belt is a higher bar than the exceptional circumstances
test which must be met before the release of Green Belt sites through a
development plan process375.
226. The fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl “by keeping
land permanently open”376. Imposing a very high bar before inappropriate
development is permitted in the Green Belt through the development
management process is key to ensuring permanence. The clear policy intent is
that Green Belts should endure “well beyond the plan period”377 in order to
ensure the requisite permanence.
227. To that end, LPAs are required to ensure that “substantial weight”378 is given
to any harm to the Green Belt arising from proposals for inappropriate
development through the development management process. That weighting is
mandated by policy irrespective of the circumstances. On the correct application
of Green Belt policy, it is not permissible to reduce the weight to be accorded to
the harm to the Green Belt (and by inference its continued protection) by
reference to a five year HLS deficit or other identified needs, irrespective of how
acute they may be.
228. Those are matters which go to the weight to be accorded to the “other
considerations” in the VSC balance and which then fall to be weighed against the
Green Belt and other harms. It is only by approaching the VSC balance in this
way that the clear intent of the Framework taken as a whole is properly reflected
and the double counting of the benefits advanced is avoided.
229. The protection of the Green Belt in national policy is regarded as so important
that the presumption against inappropriate development displaces the paragraph
11 tilted balance. Had it been the Government’s intention to reduce the weight
to be afforded to Green Belt harms in cases in which there was an absence of a
five year HLS, footnote 7 in the Framework would not have been included and
the Framework would have been worded very differently.
230. The clear intent of the Government is that the need to preserve the Green Belt
should not usually be outweighed by unmet housing need. The Appellants have
referred to two Written Ministerial Statements which provide that unmet housing
need is not normally a VSC. As statements of Government policy, they have the
same status as the Framework as material considerations in planning decision-
374 Professor May accepted this in cross examination
375 R (Luton Borough Council) v Central Bedfordshire [2015] EWCA Civ 537 per Sales LJ @
paragraph 54
376 Document CD6.1 paragraph 137
377 Document CD6.1 paragraph 143(c)
378 Document CD6.1 paragraph 148
Page 63
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
making379. Any exception380 has to be justified by the demonstration of VSC
taking full account of the context and applying weight in accordance with the
approach outlined above.
231. The VSC test requires a qualitative rather than a quantitative assessment and
it is not necessary for each consideration relied upon in support of Green Belt
development to be ‘very special’ of itself381. There is no requirement for any
particular ‘mathematical exercise’. What is required is that the decision maker
should have regard to the “real importance of the Green Belt”382.
232. To ensure the required evaluative judgment is properly undertaken, the
decision maker’s required judgment should go well beyond the descriptors of
harm and benefits. For example, a ‘substantial’ or ‘very substantial’ harm to an
asset of national importance such as the Green Belt is not either logically or
sensibly outweighed by a ‘substantial’ benefit which gives rise to only local
effects.
233. Beyond ensuring that the relevant considerations appear on the right side of
the balance, it is essential to ensure that there is no double counting in the
balance, which the Appellants have not done. Instead, the Appellants have
weighed into the cumulative balance in favour of the grant of planning permission
considerations which, when they are properly analysed, are simply different ways
of expressing the housing need benefit of the appeal proposal383.
234. Whilst there is no dispute that there are a number of material considerations
which weigh against the Green Belt harm and some of those are entitled to very
substantial weight, it is important that multiple reliance on the same benefit,
albeit under different guises is avoided.
235. The rigour of the test is such that each and every square metre of
inappropriate development is shown to be justified by the demonstration of VSC
and the VSC test must be satisfied at the point of approval.
Policy
236. There is no dispute as to the most important policies of the statutory DP for
the determination of the appeal384. There is, further, no dispute that the relevant
components of the DP385 are out-of-date given that they planned for a much
379 R (West Berkshire District Council) v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 441
380 As evidenced by e.g. Documents CD11.1 Colney Heath, CD11.17 Oxford Brookes, CD11.22
Billericay and ID17 which all turn on their very specific facts and, in all instances adjudged
limited impact on the Green Belt and its purposes
381 Wychavon District v SSCLG [2008] EWCA Civ 692
382 R (Sefton MBC) v SSCHLG [2021] EWHC 1082 (Admin)
383 Documents APP6 Section 3 pages 13 to 15, APP15 paragraph 7.12 page 53; Antony Pollard
accepted in cross examination that aspects of his evidence reflect, rather than supplement,
the weight accorded by James Stacey, James Donagh and Annie Gingell; and Professor May
also relies on local plan failure as a further consideration in the VSC balance, but could not
give any coherent explanation of the additional weight this attracts above that already taken
into account with respect to the ability of the proposed development to meet housing need
384 Document APP15 paragraph 4.2 page 15
385 Documents CD4.1: The Dacorum Borough Local Plan 2004; and CD4.2: the Dacorum Core
Strategy 2013
Page 64
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
lesser scale of housing growth within Dacorum and there is an absence of a five
year HLS within the Borough as assessed against the Local Housing Need (LHN).
The Council accepts that the policies of the Framework should attract greater
weight in the decision than the policies of the statutory DP and it is the Council’s
case that assessing the appeal proposal solely against the Framework should lead
to its rejection386.
237. The policies of the DP are still entitled to weight in the decision depending on
the degree of their consistency with the Framework. The age of the policies and
the fact that they might pre-date the Framework is irrelevant387. While there are
some differences between the parties on the weight to be given to certain
policies, it is agreed that the CS and the DLP are broadly consistent with the
Framework and can be afforded due weight in the determination of the appeal388.
It is therefore wrong to suggest that the entire plan is out-of-date, and this is not
the position of the Appellants’ planning witness389.
238. CS Policy CS1390 sets out the settlement hierarchy and notes that the market
towns will accommodate new development provided that it is commensurate with
the size of the settlement and associated services/facilities, helps maintain the
vitality and viability, causes no damage to the existing character and is
compatible with Green Belt and Rural Area policies. The policy wording is
somewhat more onerous than the Framework391, which states that development
should ‘respect’, ‘reflect’, ‘respond to’ and ‘maintain’ character. As the policy is
broadly consistent with the Framework, it should be accorded moderate
weight392.
239. CS Policy CS5393 states that the Council will apply national Green Belt policy.
Whilst it does not reference VSC, it states that development management policy
contained in the Framework will be applied. The policy is partially compliant with
the Framework and moderate weight should be attributed394.
240. CS policies CS17, CS18 and CS19 deal with housing-related matters. Policy
CS17395 sets an average annual number of homes to be provided over the plan
period. The policy refers to a lower housing requirement than is now required.
The policy is therefore out-of-date and should be given limited weight396. Policy
CS18397 deals with the mix of housing to be provided in new developments. It
requires a choice of homes to be provided, including a range of housing types,
sizes and tenures, housing for special needs and affordable housing. Although
not explicitly stated, ‘housing types’ is broad enough to include self-build and
386 Document DBC5 Paragraph 8.2 page 35
387 Document CD6.1 paragraph 219
388 Document CD 12.8 paragraphs.5.5-5.6
389 Professor May in cross examination
390 Document CD4.2 page 42
391 Document CD6.1 Section 12
392 Document DBC5c page 6 Table 2
393 Document CD4.2 page 49
394 Document DBC5c page 6 Table 2
395 Document CD4.2 page 91
396 Document DBC5c page 7 Table 2
397 Document CD4.2 page 93
Page 65
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
custom housing. Therefore, the policy is consistent with the Framework and
should be given full weight398. Policy CS19399 sets a requirement for affordable
housing to be provided on sites above a certain threshold. Whilst the demand
forecast on which the policy is based is out-of-date, the policy still requires the
provision of affordable housing in alignment with the Framework. This policy is
considered partially compliant with the Framework and therefore moderate
weight should be attributed to it400.
241. CS Policy CS23401 requires all new development to contribute to the provision
of social infrastructure, which for larger developments may include the provision
of land or buildings. The policy also promotes dual use, provides facilities in
defined zones and protects existing social infrastructure. It broadly complies with
the Framework and therefore moderate weight should be attributed to this
policy402.
242. CS Policy CS8403 requires all new development to contribute to a well-
connected and accessible transport system. It sets out principles a to h, which
are consistent with the provisions of the Framework. This policy is therefore
compliant with the Framework and should be afforded full weight404.
243. There is no dispute in relation to the remaining relevant policies of the CS. It
is agreed that policies CS10 to CS13405 on securing quality design are at least
partially consistent with the Framework and should attract moderate weight406.
Policy CS24407 on the Chilterns AONB is agreed to align with the Framework and
therefore to carry full weight. It ensures that development has regard to the
special qualities of the Chilterns AONB and Chilterns Conservation Board’s
Management Plan and Design Guide408. Policy CS25409 on Landscape Character is
agreed to be partially consistent with the Framework and therefore to carry
moderate weight, on the basis that it does not refer to guidance for development
in Natural England’s national character areas410.
244. Three saved policies of the DLP are relevant to the appeal411. Saved Policy
97412 requires the conservation of the beauty of the AONB. While seeking to
conserve and enhance the natural environment consistently with the Framework,
the policy is more onerous than the Framework and therefore should be accorded
moderate weight413.
398 Document DBC5c page 7 Table 2
399 Document CD4.2 page 95
400 Document DBC5c page 7 Table 2
401 Document CD4.2 page 103
402 Document DBC5c page 7 Table 2
403 Document CD4.2 page 55
404 Document DBC5c page 7 Table 2
405 Document ID61
406 Document ID61
407 Document CD4.2 page 113
408 Document ID61
409 Document CD4.2 page 114
410 Documents ID61 and APP15 paragraph 4.8.8
411 Document ID61
412 Document CD4.1 page 241
413 Document DBC5 paragraph 2.21
Page 66
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
245. There is no material dispute between the Council and the Appellants with
regard to the other two relevant DLP policies. It is agreed that Saved Policy
106414, which requires development to make a positive contribution to the canal
side environment and improve access, is consistent with the Framework and
carries full weight415. Similarly, it is agreed that Saved Policy 108416 on high
quality agricultural land is more onerous than the requirements of the Framework
which tempers the weight to be given to it417.
246. The weight to accord to the various policies will be a matter of judgment but,
even if no weight should be accorded to any of the local policies, the application
of the Framework policies alone leads to the conclusion that the development is
an unsustainable one which should not be permitted.
247. With regard to the weight to be accorded to the paused draft Emerging DLP,
the purpose of the Regulation 18 Emerging Strategy for Growth was to seek the
views of consultees on what a new local plan should contain418, and is as a
matter of law at a formative stage. The LPA also has a legal duty to consider
consultation responses conscientiously and report its response to these419. It is
common ground between the planning witnesses that the draft plan and its
proposed allocations (draft allocation Tr03) should be given no weight420.
248. The draft plan is still at an early stage of preparation and a considerable
number of objections were made by consultees421, including to the level of
growth that had been proposed in Tring. It was agreed by the Appellants that
there are a number of possible options open to the Council in the local plan
process going forward, which might include proceeding with the preferred option
in the Emerging Strategy for Growth422, reducing growth at Tring and
redistributing it across the Borough, or concluding that the extent of harms to the
Green Belt and/or AONB were such that local housing need cannot and should
not be met423. Which option the Council will proceed with is unknown at this
stage.
249. Given the extent of the objections to the Emerging DLP’s proposed Green Belt
releases424, the distribution of proposed growth and site selection within that
process, none of which has as yet been tested, the weight which may be
accorded to the evidence base which the Appellants have themselves challenged
in a number of instances425, must be informed by the fact that it too was
414 Document CD4.1 page 257
415 Document ID61
416 Document CD4.1 page 260
417 Documents ID61 and APP15 paragraph 4.5.3
418 Accepted by Professor May in cross examination
419 Professor May in cross examination
420 Document APP15 paragraph 5.12 page 26 and Professor May in cross examination
421 Document CD10.9 paragraph 1.3: Representations from 3445 people/groups and others
with 15573 individual responses
422 Document CD7.1
423 Professor May in cross examination
424 Also reflected in the number of objections from local residents to the Proposed
Development presented at the inquiry
425 Document APP15 paragraph 5.13 page 26: Professor May stated that it needed to be
challenged, corrected and completed
Page 67
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
contentious and the Council itself is still considering the consultation responses
and the implications for the way forward. This was also reflected in the evidence
of a number of the Appellants’ witnesses, who disputed or disagreed with some of
the assessments in the evidence base documents426. Even Professor May was
unwilling to give significant weight to certain documents in the evidence base
when they went against the Appellants’ case, undermining his claim427 that the
evidence base as a whole should be given significant weight. Careful judgment is
required as to the weight to be accorded to evidence base. Where it is
essentially objectively based (Green Belt assessments, assessments of need) it
should attract great weight428. Where it is founded on planning judgment (site
selection, exceptional circumstances) which the Regulation 18 consultation was
undertaken to seek views on, it must attract commensurately less weight. That
must be right or, otherwise, the Appellants would not have accepted that no
weight should be given to the draft allocation.
250. The need for further work to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances for
the release of Green Belt land, to assess whether the harm to the Green Belt
and/or AONB of the extent of growth proposed is too great, and on the
distribution of growth has been recognised429. That evidence base does however
indicate that the total land in the Borough potentially suitable for residential
development (15,192 ha) far exceeds in extent the number of sites which would
need to be allocated over and above existing commitments to address all housing
need in the Borough (7,370 homes)430. Important decisions as to the sound
distribution of growth and on site selection are still to be made. The Council has
given appropriate weight to that evidence base but nonetheless has concluded
that the Appellants’ case falls short of demonstrating the requisite VSC.
Housing Need including 5 Year Supply of Housing Land
251. The Council does not have a five year HLS, there is an acute affordable
housing need in Dacorum and no early prospect of the needs being addressed.
That is not an acceptable position and, in consequence the Council has afforded
the very highest weighting level to the contribution which the appeal proposal
would make to the unmet needs.
252. The respective positions of the parties on the 5 Year HLS have been set out431.
There is agreement as to the base date (1 April 2022), that supply should be
measured against the LHN and that a 5% buffer should be applied, because
housing delivery across the Council’s area assessed against the 2022 Housing
426 Matthew Chard Examination in Chief and cross examination; Annie Gingell Examination in
Chief and cross examination; James Donagh Examination in Chief and cross examination
427 Document APP15 paragraph 5.4 page 25
428 Accepted by Martin Stickley in cross examination
429 Document CD 10.9 paragraphs 5.13, 5.15 & 5.22
430 Samantha Ryan in cross examination; Document CD 7.20.1 page 50; Document APP1
paragraph 4.26
431 Documents CD12.11: Housing Land Supply SOCG; and ID18:The Council’s Update on 5
Year Housing Land Supply Position
Page 68
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Delivery Test is 87%432. It is further agreed that, at the base date, the minimum
housing requirement was 1,292 dpa433.
253. The differences between the parties relate solely to the supply. Following the
hearing of the housing evidence at the Inquiry, the Council’s revised position is
that it has a supply of 2,828 dwellings in the period 2022-2027. The Appellants
argue that there is a supply of 2,293 units over this period. The range is
therefore 1.77–2.19 years’ supply434.
254. Four individual sites remain in dispute between the parties and there remains
a dispute as to the level of windfall for major sites which is appropriately allowed
for within the supply. While there is a minor disagreement (3 units) regarding
the total supply for small sites with planning permission at the base date, it is
agreed that this difference is immaterial to the overall deliverable supply435.
255. When assessing the likely contribution of the disputed sites to supply, regard
should be had to all the evidence and reasonable judgment should be exercised
by reference to the local context. With regard to the large number of Inspectors’
and SofS decisions on HLS that the Appellants have referred to, each decision is
fact-sensitive436. Ultimately, it is a matter of judgment applying the tests in the
Framework and having regard to the guidance in the PPG.
256. Spencer’s Park Hemel Hempstead is a Category A site. The difference between
the parties is 120 units, of a total of 276 which benefit from a grant of reserved
matters on 13 July 2021. The Appellants accept that 132 units are deliverable in
the 5 year period but dispute the Council’s position of 252 units. The difference
between the parties is the result of an updated trajectory from Homes England
provided on 23 January 2023437 which indicates that development on site is
expected to commence in 2023, two years earlier than previously anticipated.
The site is within the catchment of the Council’s Strategic SANG at Bunkers Park
which will be made available for the development if a bespoke solution is not
found.
257. The test for Category A sites is where detailed planning permission has been
granted, it is necessary to provide clear evidence that the units will not come
forward within five years for them to be removed from the supply. The only
evidence that the Appellants have put forward is that a number of applications
relating to discharge of conditions had not yet been determined and there were
further discussions to be had on SANG438. However, the Council has shown that
SANG is available through the Council site at Bunkers Park in the event that a
bespoke SANG cannot be provided. Given Homes England’s contractual
obligation to deliver the homes, the updated trajectory should be given
432 Document CD6.1 paragraph 74c: There is therefore no significant under-delivery to date
as defined
433 Document CD12.11 paragraphs 3.0-3.3
434 Documents CD12.11 paragraph 5.0 page 13; and ID18 page 2
435 Document CD12.11 paragraph 3.6
436 Samantha Ryan in cross examination
437 Document DBC1a Appendix C page 46
438 Samantha Ryan Housing RT
Page 69
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
considerable weight. It is certainly not outweighed by any clear evidence
advanced by the Appellants. The 120 units should remain in the supply.
258. The other development in dispute is on Category B sites. With regard to land
at Marchmont Farm, the difference between the parties is 198 units. The site
benefits from a resolution to grant outline planning permission for up to 350
dwellings, land for 5 gypsy & traveller pitches. It is allocated in the DLP and
awaiting the conclusion of a legal agreement. The Council’s position is supported
by an email from Homes England which indicates that the indicative yield of 198
units can be achieved within the five year period439. The email confirms that the
legal agreement is at an advanced stage subject to minor changes following an
updated position on SANG and final comments from HCC, and the trajectory
takes account of the delay due to the SANG440, the principle of which is now
resolved and will be delivered on site. The trajectory is consistent with Homes
England’s contractual obligation to put in place enabling works by 31 March 2025.
That is sufficient clear evidence to demonstrate deliverability and 198 units
should remain in the supply.
259. In relation to the National Grid site, London Road, the difference between the
parties is 75 units. The site is allocated in the DP for a residential development
of up to 350 dwellings. An application has been submitted for a residential
development of 441 units which is awaiting final decision. The application is for
detailed planning permission and is at advanced stage, with an expectation that it
will go to committee in July 2023 after the local elections. The planning
consultants acting on behalf of the applicant have agreed with the Council’s
proposed trajectory and have not put forward any different trajectory. The
applicant is developing a bespoke SANG solution and therefore will not need to
rely on the Council’s strategic SANG441. Given the advanced stage of the
application, there is clear evidence of deliverability and the overall number of
units proposed, 75 units is a cautious number to expect to come forward in the
five year period and should remain in the supply.
260. In terms of Miswell Lane, the difference between the parties is 39 units. The
site is allocated in the DP for 24 units; it is subject to an application for detailed
planning permission for a 71-bedroom care home which equates to 39 residential
units for the purposes of HLS. The site is likely to be screened out from Habitats
Regulation Assessment on the basis that no exercise facilities or dedicated
parking is provided for residents on site and the development will therefore not
be required to provide a SANG442. Given the advanced stage of the planning
application, there is clear evidence that the site will be delivered in the five year
period. 39 units should remain in the supply.
439 Document DBC1a Appendix C pages 48-49
440 The moratorium on the grant of residential planning permissions in the Borough put in
place in consequence of Natural England’s advice relating to the Burnham Beechwoods SAC
was only lifted in late 2022 following the Council’s extensive work on putting in place its
Mitigation Strategy
441 Document DBC1a Appendix C page 41
442 Reflecting Natural England’s advice
Page 70
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
261. In relation to the deliverability of the proposed development should it be
consented443, Samantha Ryan’s evidence was that she was confident that 450
units could be delivered on the site by 2027. However, there is no clear evidence
to demonstrate this. All that the Inquiry was presented with was her own
assertion that this number of units will be delivered within the five year period.
As she accepted, the only commitment in relation to timescale made on behalf of
the Appellants, by way of a condition, is that reserved matters approval for the
first 93 dwellings will be sought within a year of any grant of planning
permission444. Applying her approach to, for example, Land at Marchmont Farm
to the proposed development, only 93 units should be counted to the five year
land supply, less than 1 month’s supply. Further constraints on early delivery of
the appeal proposal includes 14 pre-commencement conditions as well as the
indication by the Appellants’ ecology witness that construction would be halted or
constrained during the breeding bird season445. There is no clear evidence that
this site would make any meaningful contribution to the five year HLS. Its
contribution, were it to be consented, would be longer term.
262. Turning to the windfall allowance, the difference between the parties is 100
dwellings446. This relates only to major development and an allowance of 67
dwellings in year 5 for windfall on minor development is agreed between the
parties447. The Council considers that a modest allowance of 100 dwellings in
year 5, having regard both to past delivery rates and pipeline applications, is
justified448. The Council’s approach is clearly a cautious one as it has only
allowed for 100 dwellings in year 5, when the mean and average per annum
completion figures for major windfall developments between 2006 and 2022 is
much higher than this449. Even taking a three or five year average, there is only
one instance where windfall completions on major sites were lower than 100
dwellings. Live windfall applications (most awaiting decision, some granted)
show a total of net new dwellings of 373, providing the evidence on future trends
which the Appellants contended to be lacking450.
263. The Council’s Strategic SANG would be more than sufficient to enable 100
windfall dwellings to come forward451. Completions for prior approvals are not
included in the review of historic trends for windfall applications and are no part
of the evidence informing the Council’s windfall allowance452. Windfall sites are
clearly a continuing and important source of supply for the Council and an
allowance of 100 dwellings should be included in the supply figure.
264. The HLS deficit is a significant one, it is not acceptable and the contribution
that the appeal site can make to addressing it is a very substantial benefit of the
443 Samantha Ryan in cross examination
444 Samantha Ryan in cross examination and with the Appellants seeking to dilute the
commitment to allow for any potential legal challenge to be concluded
445 Peter Hadfield, in response to questions from Elizabeth Hamilton
446 Document CD12.11 page 13 paragraph 5.0
447 Document CD12.11 page 13 paragraph 5.0
448 Document DBC1 paragraphs 4.31-4.43
449 Document DBC1 paragraph 4.35
450 Document CD12.11 paragraph 4.7
451 Ronan Leydon’s oral evidence and Document DBC1c
452 Document DBC1c paragraphs.2.1-2.3, 3.1-3.2; Ronan Leydon Housing Round Table
Page 71
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
proposal, although the extent of the five year HLS benefit will depend on the
contribution of the proposed development to the five year land supply.
265. As to the delivery of 45% affordable housing, i.e. 630 units assuming that the
maximum 1,400 dwellings is constructed, that is a benefit of the appeal proposal
to which very substantial weight should also be given. Historically the delivery of
affordable housing in Dacorum has been very low453 which is exacerbated by
acute affordability issues with local households on median incomes needing 14
times their income to afford a median home in Dacorum454. For these reasons,
and taking account of the fact that there is not likely to be any early resolution of
the problems, the Council, as with the Appellants, has attached the same level of
weight to this benefit. It has consistently accorded the delivery of affordable
housing very substantial weight as a benefit of the scheme455, and the weight to
be given to this matter is not in dispute between the parties456.
266. Weight must also be given to the 5% self and custom build plots which would
be delivered i.e. a maximum of 70 plots457, and the provision of 140 Extra Care
C2 dwellings. Both of these elements should attract very substantial weight in
the planning balance. However, the Appellants’ evidence must be treated with a
degree of care in order to avoid over-weighting the benefit to be accorded to
these types of units. In relation to the self-build and custom build housing, Annie
Gingell accepted458 that the Council’s Demand Assessment Framework459 was the
best assessment of demand for custom and self-build housing in Dacorum, and
that the figures she set out of “an overall need for between 1,278 and 1,836 self-
build and custom housebuilding plots”460 were not a robust assessment of
need461. She accepted, that the appeal site’s provision of 5% self-build and
custom build plots is inadequate462 but at no stage did she advise her client of
the need to provide more self-build and custom build housing on the basis of her
assessment of need. Finally, the Council is in compliance with its statutory duty
to grant planning permission for self and custom-build housing under the Self-
build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, section 2A.
267. In relation to the Extra Care provision, the need and benefits for such
provision are recognised and the Appellants have now committed to the delivery
453 Document APP3 paragraph 6.3 page 29
454 Document APP3 paragraph 8.24 page 45
455 Document CD2.4: Committee Report paragraph 9.837
456 Document CD12.8 paragraph 7.2.1; PINS Procedural Guide (Updated 21 December 2022)
paragraph F.10.3: Proofs of Evidence to express opinion and argument concisely and only
cover areas which remain at issue between the parties; Document APP3 paragraph 9.14 page
56: James Stacey expressly acknowledged that the Council had not sought inappropriately to
downplay the benefit of the proposed affordable housing provision
457 Annie Gingell in cross examination: This is agreed to be a qualitative benefit rather than a
quantitative benefit. The 70 units fall within the 1400 dwellings proposed and meet no
additional quantitative need for housing; there is agreed to be no evidence that they produce
any quantifiable additional economic benefit on a comparison with any other housing unit
458 Annie Gingell in cross examination
459 Document CD7.19
460 Document APP4 paragraph 3.52
461 Instead Annie Gingell stated that these would be an “indication of what demand is likely to
be”
462 Annie Gingell in cross examination
Page 72
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
of 140 units. The Council has consistently attached greater weight to this benefit
of the appeal proposal in its balance than the Appellants463.
268. Overall, the Council assesses the weight to be accorded to the housing benefits
of the appeal proposal as very substantial, albeit marginally less weighty than the
Appellants by reason of its exaggeration of the ability of the appeal site to
contribute to the five year HLS and some of the benefits of the self-build and
custom build housing.
Green Belt Harm
269. There is no dispute that the proposed development is inappropriate
development in the Green Belt and therefore substantial weight must be
accorded to the definitional harm464. However, there is a dispute as to the extent
to which the appeal site contributes towards Green Belt purposes, as well as the
impact of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt.
270. The site comprises approximately 121 ha of undeveloped greenfield
countryside. It is free of any built or other development which would be
regarded as inappropriate in Green Belt policy terms and is therefore spatially
completely open465. While there is some screening of views into the site from
vegetation and trees along Marshcroft Lane and Bulbourne Road, there remain
partial and glimpsed views into the open areas of the site from those locations466.
More open views into the site can be obtained from Station Road467. There are
also open views into the site from PRoWs 057 and 058 along its eastern
boundary468 as well as from the entrance to Grove Farm in the north and the
residential back gardens adjoining the site to the west469. Open views across the
whole of the site can be obtained from the Ridgeway National Trail in the
Chilterns AONB to the north-east of the site470, and there are partial and
glimpsed views of the whole site from the Ridgeway and Tring Park to the south-
west of the site471. To a great extent, the site is therefore also visually open.
271. The fullest consideration of the strategic and comparative value of the part of
the Green Belt within which the appeal site lies is found in the Stage 2 Green Belt
Review and Landscape Appraisal undertaken by ARUP in 2016472. That document
was given very substantial weight by the Appellants’ planning witness as part of
the evidence base of the Emerging DLP in his written proof473. It considers the
appeal site both as part of strategic parcel GB04 Land north of Tring and as two
sub-areas, TR-A2 and TR-A3, which are identified in the overall categorisation of
463 Document ID59
464 Document DBC5c Table 3 page 9; all the relevant planning witnesses have reflected the
national importance of Green Belt by according the definitional harm very substantial weight
465 Matthew Chard agreed in cross examination
466 Document CD1.6(i) D4 Site Context photo 3
467 Documents DBC5 paragraph 3.18 page 19 and CD1.6(i) D4 Site Context photos 8, 15, 17
& 18
468 Document CD1.6(i) D4 Site Context photos 1 and 17
469 Document DBC5 paragraphs 3.22-3.23 page 21
470 Document DBC3a Appendix 4 photos 1-6
471 Documents DBC5 paragraph 3.20 page 20 and DBC3a Appendix 4 photos 8-11
472 Document CD7.23.4 Annex Report 1 pages 130-134
473 Document APP15 paragraph 5.12 page 26
Page 73
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
sub-areas as strongly contributing to Green Belt purposes, the highest
categorisation of sites assessed by the report474.
272. The ARUP report recommended considering a reduced TR-A2 further but
advised that TR-A3 should be excluded from further consideration for release on
the basis that it would compromise the ability of the wider Green Belt to meet its
purposes475. A revised and significantly reduced sub-area TR-A2 was
subsequently proposed for further consideration for Green Belt release476. That
sub-area is largely outside the appeal site, covering the neighbouring site known
as New Mill. The Green Belt assessments undertaken by the Council concluded
that the appeal site should not be taken forward for further assessment for
release477. That is a very important consideration in this case. The appeal site is
not land which has been identified through the comparative Green Belt
assessment as making only a limited contribution to the Green Belt or its
purposes or one which has been recommended for release. This is high value
Green Belt which the assessment recommended should not be taken forward for
further consideration.
273. A Site Assessment Study was undertaken by AECOM in 2020478. This assessed
sites proposed for development as part of the ‘call for sites’ for the Emerging
DLP. To the extent that it considered Green Belt, it was concerned only with
Green Belt boundary definition in the event that sites were released from the
Green Belt. It involved no further assessment of Green Belt value beyond the
earlier ARUP work479. No additional landscape or Green Belt study was
undertaken for that assessment, which did not revisit the Green Belt
assessments, but rather considered other factors which might comprise
exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release480. While overall the report
recommended the site as potentially suitable for allocation subject to major
constraints, on Green Belt terms it reflected ARUP’s view that the site should be
excluded from further consideration481. Consistently with the ARUP report, the
AECOM report recognised the significant constraints of the site in Green Belt
terms and therefore significant Green Belt harm that development on the site
would entail482.
274. Turning to the Green Belt purposes, the site assists in preventing the
encroachment of development into the countryside (Purpose (c)), and meets this
criterion at least relatively strongly483. The ARUP Stage 2 Assessment concluded
that both parcels of the site assessed in that document, TR-A2 and TR-A3, made
the highest contribution to this purpose (a score of 5 out of 5)484. The Appellants
474 Document CD7.23.4 Table 5.2 page 54 and Annex Report 1 pages 130-134
475 Document CD7.23.4 Table 5.6 page 98
476 Document CD7.23.4 page 117
477 Recognised by Matthew Chard in cross examination
478 Document CD7.7
479 Document CD1.6 paragraph 8.2.46 page 101
480 Matthew Chard in cross examination
481 Document CD7.7.2 page 163
482 Document CD7.7.2 pages 163-164
483 Document APP2Table 9 pages 32-34; Matthew Chard in cross examination; and Document
CD6.1 paragraph 138
484 Document CD7.23.4 pages 131-134
Page 74
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
also recognise, consistently with the ARUP Assessment, that the site makes a
moderate contribution to Purpose (a), in its role in preventing the “outward
sprawl of the large built-up area of Tring”485. Correspondingly, the site is
countryside and all landscape features on the site are typical of the countryside,
and the western boundary of the site currently prevents the spread of Tring into
the countryside486.
275. The Appellants, through their landscape witness487, sought the following flawed
ways in which to reduce the level of contribution of the site to the purposes of
the Green Belt. First, he assessed the combined contribution of the site to Green
Belt purposes as ‘moderate’ on the basis that on his assessment it only made a
relatively strong and moderate contribution to two purposes, and no contribution
at all to the three other Green Belt purposes488. This is wrong as Green Belt
purpose scores cannot be ‘averaged’ in this way and Green Belt purposes are not
ranked and should be treated of equal importance. The strong contribution of
the site in protecting the countryside from encroachment must be given
appropriate weight in the planning balance489.
276. Second, the Appellants sought to lessen the Green Belt harm by reference to
the fact that only part of the site would be developed490. However, as was
accepted491, where a developer chooses, or is required, to draw the red line
boundary does not affect the impact of the proposed inappropriate built
development on the Green Belt purposes or openness of the land which is to be
developed492. It was accepted that development even on only 40% of the site
would still amount to a reasonably large portion of Green Belt493. The fact that
only part of the site will be developed does not reduce its contribution to Green
Belt purposes or the harm to those purposes that would result from the
development that will take place.
277. Third, the Appellants relied upon the benefit of the development with regard to
enabling access to an area of the Green Belt that is currently closed to the public,
namely that part of the site which is proposed as SANG494. However, that is at
best compensation for the loss of Green Belt; it does not mitigate the harm to
the purposes of the Green Belt. Further, as was clarified495, it was no part of the
Appellants’ case that any part of the appeal site remain in the Green Belt once
developed. The Appellants’ position is that, with the development in place, the
Green Belt boundary should be revised to follow the Grand Union Canal496. There
is therefore no justification for reducing the harm to the Green Belt on the basis
that access to the Green Belt will be improved.
485 Document APP2 paragraphs 9.7, 9.12, Table 9.1 pages 31-34
486 Matthew Chard in cross examination
487 Matthew Chard
488 Document APP2 paragraph 9.12 page 34; Matthew Chard in cross examination
489 Document DBC5 paragraph 8.3 page 35
490 Document APP2 paragraphs.9.13-9.14 pages 34-35
491 Matthew Chard in cross examination
492 Matthew Chard in cross examination
493 In response to a question from the Inspector
494 Matthew Chard examination in chief
495 Matthew Chard in cross examination
496 Matthew Chard in cross examination
Page 75
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
278. Turning to the effects of the development on openness, the appeal proposal
would represent a significant encroachment into the openness of the site. That
loss of spatial openness, as accepted by the Appellants, cannot be mitigated497.
As well as built development, the activity associated with the development
generated by over 3,000 new residents, including vehicular movements, would
also have a detrimental impact on openness498.
279. On visual openness, this is determined by whether the Green Belt will appear
more built up than before499, not the quality of design or attractiveness of any
new buildings or other benefits of development. Matthew Chard’s fundamental
error in his approach by reducing the harm on the basis of the benefits for visual
receptors in terms of visual amenity, improved public experience and public
accessibility500 influenced his assessment of the harm to visual openness. He had
applied the wrong test and in consequence inevitably understated the harm to
visual openness.
280. This error was compounded by failing to recognise or assess the increase in
views of the site (and therefore increased perception of the reduction in
openness) which will result from the removal of vegetation along Marshcroft Lane
to enable the proposed spine road to be delivered501. Similarly, he failed to
recognise or assess the impact of the finger of development along Station Road
which will be clearly visible from PRoW 057, Station Road and the Ridgeway,
further reducing visual openness502. The consequence of the flaws in Matthew
Chard’s assessment are that it significantly underplays the Green Belt harms.
Rather than representing a more detailed/refined assessment supporting a
different judgment on Green Belt value and harm to that reached by ARUP, which
is how Professor May sought to portray it, in reality it wrongly confuses visual
openness with visual attractiveness and is worthless as an analysis of Green Belt
harm503. Professor May’s overall planning balance is wholly reliant on Matthew
Chard’s purported Green Belt assessment.
281. It is undeniable that a development of the proposed size would have a
significant impact both on the spatial openness of the Green Belt and on its
perceived openness. Whilst the site has reasonably firm physical boundaries,
they exert limited visual containment, particularly in relation to elevated views of
the site from the Ridgeway National Trail. The loss of openness of this part of
the Green Belt would be obvious to users of PRoWs 057 and 058, the Ridgeway
National Trail viewpoints, Station Road, Marshcroft Lane and Bulbourne Road.
The Green Belt would appear substantially more built up with the development in
place than before504.
497 Matthew Chard in cross examination
498 Matthew Chard in cross examination
499 Turner v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 466
500 Document APP2 paragraphs 10.15, 10.20 pages 39-40
501 Document DBC5 paragraph 3.19 page 20
502 Document DBC5 paragraph 3.21 pages 20-21
503 Document DBC5c paragraph 4.5 page 11
504 The test posed by Sales LJ in Turner v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 466 paragraph 14
Page 76
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Landscape and Visual Effects
282. Although, there is no reason for refusal on landscape, the impact of the
proposed development on the character and appearance of the area was agreed
as a main issue505, and all parties agree that the proposed development will have
a significant adverse impact in that regard at least during construction and at
year 1506. Furthermore, the effect on landscape character and visual amenity is a
matter going to ‘other harm’ in the Green Belt balance and therefore relevant to
weight. On behalf of the Appellants, Professor May has indicated that harm to
the AONB is a matter which weighs against the grant of planning permission
irrespective of whether or not, of itself, it would justify refusal of planning
permission507.
283. The Council’s landscape evidence from Tanya Kirk was clearly defined as was
its relevance to the issues for the SofS’s consideration508, reflecting the approach
to landscape and visual impact taken in the Committee Report509, and the
outstanding areas of disagreement on landscape matters, as understood by the
parties on 3 February 2023, in the Landscape SoCG510.
284. In order to demonstrate VSC, it is necessary for definitional harm to the Green
Belt and ‘any other harm’ to be clearly outweighed by other considerations. In
that balance, all harms must be taken into account, not just those effects which
reach the threshold of significance under the environmental impact assessment
regime511. Therefore, even minor adverse effects on landscape character and
visual amenity must be weighed in the balance.
285. The baseline situation is largely agreed. It is agreed that the site is open
countryside in an agricultural and pastoral land use512, is surrounded on three
sides by the Chilterns AONB, which is adjacent to the site boundary, and forms
part of the AONB’s setting513. The existing settlement of Tring is well-integrated
into the landscape, and this is part of its character as a settlement514. In
landscape terms, the site has an open feel; it is possible to see across the site for
quite some distance from PRoWs 057 and 058 along its eastern boundary515.
286. In terms of the baseline landscape character sensitivity, the differences
between the Appellants and the Council for LCA 114: Tring Gap Foothills results
from a difference in the assessment of susceptibility. The difference between the
505 Document CD12.7
506 Documents CD12.12 paragraph 2.29 page 6; and DBC3a Appendix 2
507 Document APP15 paragraph 11.11.3 page 69
508 Document DBC3 paragraph 1.2.1 page 2
509 Document CD2.4 paragraphs.9.48-9.64. At paragraph 9.64 the report concludes that “the
proposal would have a major negative impact on the landscape character of the area and
adjacent AONB even allowing for additional mitigation which might be secured by condition”
510 Document CD12.12 paragraph 3.1 page 7
511 Matthew Chard accepted in cross examination
512 Document CD12.12 paragraphs 2.3-2.4
513 Document CD12.12 paragraph 2.6; Tanya Kirk examination in chief; Matthew Chard cross
examination
514 Document CD12.12 paragraph 2.14; Tanya Kirk examination in chief
515 Document CD12.12 paragraph 2.13; Tanya Kirk examination in chief; Matthew Chard
examination in chief noted that there were panoramic views of the AONB from Footpath 58
Page 77
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
parties in relation to the character of the site and its surroundings results from a
difference in both value and susceptibility.
287. It is agreed that the site is broadly representative of LCA 114 Tring Gap
Foothills516, the key characteristics of which are517:
• views to the Chilterns escarpment;
• framing and containment by wooded scarp slopes;
• arterial transport corridor, including west coast main line, A41, Grand Union
Canal and Akeman Street;
• mixed open farmland;
• parkland landscapes at Tring Park and Pendley Manor;
• urban fringe influences around Tring, including residential sports pitches and
a garden centre; and
• recreational routes, including the Grand Union Canal Walk and the Ridgeway.
288. The character area and the site form part of the setting to Tring but also the
rural outlook for the Chilterns escarpment518. Given the integration of Tring into
the landscape, the character area and the site have a relatively weak relationship
with the settlement of Tring. There is no basis in the LCA assessment for
elevating the strength of relationship of the character area to the settlement of
Tring, as the Appellants did. Similarly, the detracting features relied on by the
Appellants to argue that the susceptibility of the LCA to development should be
lower, namely the West Coast Main Line, the A41 and the Grand Union Canal, are
not present, and do not exert an influence, on the site. They do not lessen its
susceptibility to development.
289. Matthew Chard assessed the relevant national character area, NCA 110, as
having medium-high susceptibility to development but applied a lower
susceptibility to the smaller LCA within which the appeal site sits, with no
explanation. It is illogical for a larger character area to have a higher
susceptibility to development, as the smaller a character area, the less likely it
will be able to accommodate a large urban extension without undue
consequences for its baseline519. The appeal site comprises around 10% of LCA
114 and will involve built development and loss of key LCA characteristics on
around half of that area. Whilst Matthew Chard has referred to the number of
designations in NCA 110, for example ancient woodlands, SSSIs and SACs, it is
very substantial and includes a number of very large conurbations as well as
environmental constraints.
290. With regard to the character of the site and surroundings, the main reasons for
the difference between the parties relate to the assessment of the impact of the
settlement Tring on the site. The LVIA refers to the urbanising influence of the
516 Matthew Chard in cross examination
517 Document CD4.3 page 80
518 Evident from the key characteristics and explained by Tanya Kirk in examination in chief
519 Matthew Chard in cross examination
Page 78
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
eastern edge of the settlement on the site520; and the Appellants have referred to
the presence of dwellings, the railway station and the car park at Tring Station,
as well as development along Station Road521. However, Matthew Chard also
referred to the eastern extent of the site becoming more rural away from the
settlement edge, as well as having a greater sense of remoteness522. Similarly,
he accepted that Tring Station is not visible from the site itself and emphasised
that landscape character is perceptual: what you see, hear and smell523.
291. This is consistent with the approach taken by the LVIA to the designated
heritage assets just to the south of Station Road, which were not identified as
having an effect on the baseline landscape character as there was no
intervisibility between those heritage assets and the site524. From PRoWs 057
and 058 along the eastern boundary of the site it is only possible to obtain
glimpses of the settlement of Tring and it is generally well-screened525. Any
urban influences which are perceived from the site are very limited and do not
lessen its sensitivity to the degree asserted by the Appellants.
292. Regarding the landscape value of the site and its immediate surroundings, the
Appellants accept that the appeal site shares at least some of its key
characteristics with the designated AONB526, a landscape of high value, and that
the landscape features on the site complement the AONB in some respects527.
The Appellants also assessed the Tring Gap Foothills LCA 114 as having a high
value, notwithstanding the identification of urbanising influences on that
character area. Given the site shares a number of key characteristics with LCA
114 and is agreed to be broadly representative of it, assessing the landscape
value of the site as medium underplays that value and is inconsistent with other
elements of the Appellants’ assessment528.
293. Tanya Kirk also assessed the Tring Scarp Slopes LCA 111 and Aldbury Scarp
Slopes LCA 116 as having a medium sensitivity. These two LCAs are relevant to
the SofS’s consideration as they cover parts of the escarpments within the AONB
with views of the site. The appeal proposal would indirectly affect one of their
characteristics, namely fine panoramic views from the Chilterns escarpment529.
294. With regard to the baseline sensitivity of visual receptors, there is agreement
between the Council and the Appellants530. All of the identified viewpoints in the
AONB have a high sensitivity. It is similarly agreed that while the zone of
theoretical visibility is reasonably limited, it covers some of the most sensitive
landscape and visual receptors in the area531.
520 Document DBC3a Appendix 2 Landscape Character Comparison Table page 6
521 examination in chief
522 examination in chief
523 Matthew Chard in response to a question by the Inspector
524 Document CD1.6 Environmental Statement paragraph 8.5.19 page 110
525 examination in chief
526 Matthew Chard in cross examination
527 Matthew Chard in cross examination
528 Document CD1.6 Environmental Statement paragraphs.8.5.9, 8.5.14 page 109
529 Tanya Kirk examination in chief; Document DBC3a Appendix 2 pages 5-6
530 Document DBC3a Appendix 2 Visual Effects Table
531 Tanya Kirk examination in chief; Document APP2 paragraph 6.5 page 17
Page 79
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
295. The differences between the parties on the landscape and visual effects532
narrow with the Appellants’ commitment to a condition requiring the provision of
additional structural planting within the scheme. The condition overrides parts of
the submitted Design Code which did not allow for sufficient space for such
planting to be accommodated. The Appellants’ assessment artificially reduced
effects at year 1 by reference to there being a more settled landscape at that
stage than at construction stage533, which serves to underestimate the relevant
post-construction effects as they will be experienced. The correct application of
the LVIA methodology required the comparison of the landscape or visual effects
against the baseline, not against a more disrupted landscape caused by the
construction of the development itself.
296. In relation to agricultural fields, the Appellants’ assessment finds a large
magnitude of effect with moderate to major adverse significance at year 1534.
However, by year 15 the LVIA finds that, notwithstanding the magnitude of effect
does not change, the significance of the effect is negligible adverse. This must
be wrong on the basis that, as was accepted, the agricultural fields are a feature
which contributes to character and will be lost completely535. The SANG cannot
mitigate the loss of openness and agricultural fields and will have a greater sense
of enclosure due to the proposed new tree and scrub planting536.
297. With regard to the Tring Gap Foothills LCA, the Appellants accepted that the
site represents 10% of the LCA as a whole537 and would experience a permanent
and irreversible change, including the loss of open character from approximately
half of the appeal site538. Key characteristics of the LCA would be lost including
mixed open farmland and views from PRoWs 057 and 058 to the escarpment to
the south-west. There would be other negative landscape character effects
including new infrastructure, additional activity and vehicle movements and
reduced tranquillity. Matthew Chard was not able to justify why 1,400 dwellings
at year 1, with no mitigation in place, would have a lesser magnitude of change
than at year 15 when planting had become more established539. If the SofS
accepts that a medium-high sensitivity should be applied to the Tring Gap
Foothills, consistently with NCA 110, this would have a knock-on effect on the
assessed significance of effect and, as was agreed, in those circumstances the
residual significance of effect would be moderate, aligned with Tanya Kirk’s
findings540. This is an area of landscape which is agreed by the Appellants to
form part of the ‘open and largely undeveloped setting’ to the AONB541.
298. With regard to visual effects, the main differences relate to the residual effects
of development at year 15. Tanya Kirk ascribed a higher magnitude of effect to
532 Document DBC3a Appendix 2
533 Document APP2 paragraph 8.8 page 26
534 Document DBC3a Appendix 2 page 1
535 Document APP2b paragraph 1.8 page 2: There appears to be a lack confidence in this
finding
536 Document DBC3a Appendix 2 page 1
537 Matthew Chard in cross examination
538 Matthew Chard in cross examination
539 Matthew Chard in cross examination
540 Matthew Chard in cross examination
541 Document APP2 paragraph 5.18 page 15
Page 80
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the southern part of PRoW 057 on the basis that development along Station Road
would be highly visible, which was not taken into account in the LVIA542. There is
also a discrepancy in the Appellants’ assessment of the effect on pedestrians on
the Ridgeway at Pitstone Hill, in which a medium magnitude is ascribed to both
the construction and residual effects, but the significance of effect reduces to
negligible at year 15, notwithstanding the combination of a medium magnitude
with a receptor of high sensitivity. The descriptive text in the LVIA refers to the
development being ‘noticeable’ at year 15, whereas the LVIA methodology
describes a negligible adverse effect as one that is ‘barely perceptible’543.
299. The main remaining differences between the parties in terms of the landscape
and visual effects of greatest significance relate to the effectiveness of the
mitigation of landscape effects and the landscape impact of the finger of
development along Station Road, which lead to the resultant harm to the
character and appearance of the area as well as the Chilterns AONB. Mitigation
is critical and the need for it in the present case derives directly from the
Framework which provides that “development within [the setting of an AONB]
should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts
on the designated areas”544. The importance of ensuring the parameters of an
outline scheme enable sufficient mitigation to be delivered is underpinned by
guidance in GLVIA which advises that the design concept for mitigation must
have a good chance of being achieved in practice545.
300. The Appellants have recognised the importance of structural landscaping,
noting that the existing structure in the southern parcel would soften and
mitigate built form and referring to the existing “strong substantial hedgerow
features” in that part of the site which would visually and physically contain built
form. It is common ground that those features are much less present in the
northern parcel of the site546. The importance of landscape mitigation is further
evident in the appearance of Pitstone Village from Pitstone Hill, which all parties
were agreed is stark and has been poorly mitigated through a lack of structural
planting547.
301. Structural planting is necessary along north-south corridors in order to break
up the massing of development proposed along the western edge of the appeal
site, which will appear foreshortened in views from the Ridgeway National Trail to
the east of the appeal site. Taller trees comparable to building heights would
help to break up built form. They would also assist in assimilating the new
development into the town of Tring, creating a development that reflects the
existing character of Tring as well-settled in the landscape and with wide tree-
lined verges. Existing examples of such structural planting include that along
Marshcroft Lane, the vegetation lining the Canal and Tree Belt 3. There is no
concrete suggestion for the location of such new structural planting on the
542 Tanya Kirk examination in chief
543 Matthew Chard in cross examination; Document CD1.6 Environmental Statement Appendix
D2 page 10
544 Policy introduced after the Council had produced its Regulation 18 Emerging Strategy for
Growth
545 Document CD6.21 GLVIA paragraph 4.42 page 65; Matthew Chard examination in chief
546 Matthew Chard examination in chief
547 Matthew Chard examination in chief
Page 81
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Landscape and Open Parameter Plan548. Sufficient space also needs to be
provided for structural mitigation to be successful and grow to sufficient height.
The ‘Mandatory Design Principles’ for the primary street, intended to be one of
the densest parts of the development, do not provide sufficient verge width to
enable trees to grow to or above building heights549.
302. An agreed condition which would require details of structural landscaping to be
provided prior to the commencement of development and a commitment to
specified verge widths would in large part resolve the Council’s concerns
regarding the lack of structural mitigation proposed. However, some residual
effects would remain, as the site planting at year 15 would be at its highest
having reached 12m in the SANG550. In order to successfully soften and screen
views of the development from the elevated vantage points to the east, tree
planting will need to reach the depth and height of Tree Belt 3, which is 21m
high551.
303. The Appellants have agreed that DP policy on the AONB is consistent with the
Framework and therefore entitled to full weight552 and accepts that, if the
proposed development causes harm to the setting of AONB, this must be given
great weight pursuant to paragraph 176 of the Framework553. It is common
ground that the site is part of the setting of the AONB, due to the key
characteristics of the AONB which include panoramic views and in particular due
to views of the site from the Ridgeway National Trail and Pitstone Hill within the
AONB. Views of the proposed development from the AONB include those from
the elevated scarp to the north-east and going along Pitstone Hill, Tring Park and
Icknield Way, as well as channelled views out at certain gaps554. The receptors
for views in the AONB are all agreed to be of high sensitivity555. They would
experience adverse effects as a result of the appeal proposal, both from the lack
of structural mitigation and the finger of development along Station Road, which
would be very evident in views from the elevated escarpments.
304. There would also be a loss of panoramic views of the AONB from PRoWs 057
and 058, as the current views of the scarp to the south-west of the site would be
lost as a result of built development and the tree planting in the SANG. The
retention of these views had not been considered at any point as part of the
design rationale for the scheme556. Matthew Chard confirmed that the views of
the scarp from those footpaths were distinctive and provided a sense of place
and accepted that they contribute to the enjoyment of the PRoW557. He accepted
that there was no attempt within the ‘Development Framework Plan’558 to provide
for retention of views from the footpaths to the escarpment to the south-west.
548 Document CD1.4a
549 Document CD1.10 Design Code page 79
550 Matthew Chard in cross examination
551 Tanya Kirk examination in chief
552 Document ID60
553 Professor May in cross examination
554 Matthew Chard examination in chief
555 Document DBC3a Appendix 2
556 Robert Coles in cross examination
557 Matthew Chard in cross examination
558 Document CD1.4a
Page 82
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
The Council’s concerns on this matter were raised at consultation stage by the
Council’s appointed landscape consultants559.
305. With regard to the suggestion by the Appellants that Tring was also part of the
setting of the AONB, the proposed development has a harmful impact on the
AONB precisely because it fails to follow the settlement pattern of Tring. In
terms of the development at Roman Way, referred to by the Appellants to
demonstrate that the Council considered that development up to the AONB
boundary was acceptable, no details of that application or decision are before the
Inquiry. Furthermore, given that context is key, and each site will have different
circumstances, the appeal site is particularly large, open and very visible from a
number of footpaths in the AONB, including nationally designated trails.
306. What the evidence before the Inquiry shows, taken as a piece, is that there
will be residual adverse visual effects arising from the development of the appeal
proposal, including when viewed from the National Trail and other AONB
viewpoints. Those effects will be greater than the LVIA assesses, but with the
structural planting condition, less than originally assessed by the Council. Some
remain significant effects. Great weight should be accorded to all the adverse
effects on the AONB in the overall balance560.
307. The finger of development along Station Road would cause additional
significant harm to the landscape both in terms of the character and appearance
of the area and on the AONB. The character of this element of the development,
which is described in the ‘Mandatory Design Principles’ as becoming more urban
away from Tring and towards Tring Station and as ‘higher density development’
in the DAS, would not be complementary to the current rural character of Station
Road in terms of its density and height561. It would also not be complementary
to the settlement pattern of Tring, as recognised in the AECOM Site Assessment
Study562. At the southern end of PRoW 057, the development on Station Road
will not be integrated into the SANG and will be clearly visible to users of that
PRoW563.
308. The Appellants have not correctly assessed this part of the proposed
development564. It was also accepted that, when asserting that an open swathe
of countryside (i.e. the SANG) would be retained along the border of the AONB,
Matthew Chard had failed to take into account the linear development along
559 Document CD3.45a paragraph 3.6 page 4; Matthew Chard in cross examination confirmed
that he had been aware of those comments at the time
560 As required by the Framework and agreed by Professor May in cross examination.
Document ID39: The Appellants produced a pie chart to show that in terms of the AONB
paths views would be obtainable from only 87% of their length but those viewpoints the
development would be seen from include some of the most sensitive AONB views and the
length of paths over which views may be obtained still exceeds 4 km (14% of 29 km)
561 Document CD1.10 Design Code page 95
562 Document CD7.20.2 page 164
563 Accepted by Matthew Chard
564 Document APP2a Appendix 2 page 7: Matthew Chard was under the impression that lower
density development was proposed to address the rural character of Station Road and the
LVIA assessment of the landscape impact of the development along Station Road which
reflects this misunderstanding, is therefore flawed and should be given no weight
Page 83
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Station Road which would incur into the SANG along Station Road565. Regarding
the suggested justification for extending the development along Station Road into
the SANG being surveillance due to concerns around the safety of Station Road
for vulnerable users at night, there are other less harmful ways of ensuring the
pedestrian and cycle routes are perceived as safe566. The design response leads
to a significantly harmful extension of built form into the SANG, materially
diluting the originally proposed design response to the Station Road frontage.
Further, despite causing significant harm, the extent of development proposed
would still leave parts of Station Road to the east without surveillance which
materially weakens the benefit567.
Highways
309. The only outstanding issue between the parties on highways relates to the
speed limit on Station Road and whether this could be safely reduced to 40mph.
The speed limit is a matter for HCC568. The speed limit on Station Road does
affect the design of the Station Road access569. There is no dispute that speed
limits should be self-enforcing570. While lower vehicle speeds on roads may
create a more welcoming environment for pedestrians and cyclists, it does not
follow that a reduction in speed limits, without the necessary environmental
factors to cause a change in driver behaviour, will lead to a reduction in actual
vehicle speeds571. The recorded speeds on Station Road, around 50mph for the
85 percentile and 43mph mean speed, are higher than the speeds required to
justify a reduction to 40mph in HCC’s adopted ‘Speed Management Strategy’572.
They would justify a reduction from the national speed limit to 50mph, which
HCC is willing to impose. The Appellants’ evidence described Station Road as a
‘fast road’573 or ‘very fast’574, notwithstanding the fact that the speed limit at
Tring Station and at Tring is 30mph.
310. Given the need for speed limits to be self-enforcing, the relationship between
the proposed development and Station Road is crucial. Whether the design for a
40mph access or that for a 50mph access is adopted, the internal cycle and
pedestrian route and the new houses will be set back quite some distance (at
least 10m) from the northern edge of the carriageway575. Given the outline
nature of the application, how the new built environment will affect speeds on
565 Matthew Chard in cross examination and response to the Inspector’s question
566 Martin Stickley in cross examination
567 Document CD1.9 Part 1 page 47
568 Scott Witchalls recognises this in examination in chief
569 Document CD 12.3: The access design for a 50mph speed limit on Station Road; and
Document CD1.4b access design that could be implemented if a 40mph speed limit is
imposed
570 Scott Witchalls in cross examination
571 Scott Witchalls in examination in chief was reluctant to agree that it would be possible to
reduce the speed limit on Station Road to 30mph, stating that this would require caution
without introducing further design features to maintain that speed
572 James Dale examination in chief; Document DBC2a: Speed Management Strategy page 18
Table 1
573 Matthew Chard and Professor May
574 Professor May in examination in chief
575 James Dale examination in chief and Scott Witchalls cross examination; Document CD1.4b
Page 84
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Station Road cannot at this point of time be accurately predicted. There will be
an opportunity to revisit speed limits at the reserved matters stage576.
311. With regard to the bus service contribution and station improvements, it is
agreed that these are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
terms and therefore can be taken into account in the planning balance as part of
the Appellants’ commitments in its section 106 contribution577. The station
improvements were a key strand of the accessibility of the scheme and were
required to enhance and ensure the safety of access for pedestrians and cyclists
to the station578. The ability to serve the appeal site by public transport is a
factor which makes it sustainable development, and cycle facilities at the station
are important for achieving the proposed mode share for sustainable travel579.
The development would not be exemplary if served by a station with poor
facilities and that was why the station improvements are essential580.
312. A letter from WMT regarding the proposed contribution for station
improvements581 did not provide any commitment to a timetable for spending the
money or any details as to precise works to be undertaken. A further letter
dated 21 April 2023582 provides sufficient detail on how and when the proposed
contributions will be spent to enable the Council to accept that these are secured
through a section 106 obligation and for the commitments to be weighed
accordingly.
Very Special Circumstances Balance
313. The cumulative harms which the proposed development would give rise to are
very substantial. The development would constitute a very significant
encroachment by inappropriate development into an area of high performing
Green Belt resulting in substantial harm to its openness in conflict with its
fundamental aim and at least one of its purposes. The fact that these harms may
be capable of brief articulation does not lessen the weight which should be given
to this important nationally protected asset. Those harms are increased by the
significant residual landscape effects, including harm to the setting of the AONB.
314. An additional factor which is agreed to weigh against the development is the
loss of BMV agricultural land. Professor May’s attribution of negligible weight
cannot be correct and Alastair Field was not willing to adopt it583. It does not
reflect the assessment in the ES, which finds that the residual effect of the
proposed development on agricultural land, taking into account proposed
mitigation, is a direct, permanent and major adverse effect, on the basis of the
permanent loss of 116.7 ha of agricultural land of which 59 ha is BMV agricultural
576 James Dale cross examination: accepted by HCC
577 Scott Witchalls and Professor May in cross examination
578 Scott Witchalls in examination in chief
579 Scott Witchalls in cross examination
580 Scott Witchalls oral evidence; and the assessment in the Environmental Statement and the
Appellants’ Transport Assessment Documents CD1.6 Environmental Statement paragraph
10.6.1 and CD11.1 Travel Plan paragraphs.11.4.10-11.4.11
581 Document ID29
582 Document ID62
583 Alastair Field in cross examination
Page 85
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
land584. The Addendum Note provided by Alastair Field585 does not change the
position. Regardless of whether the agricultural land is lost to built development
or green infrastructure, it will still be lost.
315. It is common ground that the development will cause less than substantial
harm to heritage assets586, which must also be given great weight in the VSC
balance587.
316. Whilst the considerations relied upon by the Appellants in support of the
scheme are weighty ones, a number of which must be accorded very substantial
weight, in particular the contribution to much needed HLS and the acutely
needed affordable housing, those and the other considerations relied upon do not
clearly outweigh the harms which would be caused. As the Appellants have
accepted, they cannot point to any other decision of the SofS where this extent
of Green Belt harm has been sanctioned in order to deliver housing on a site
which has not been included in at least a Regulation 19 submission draft Local
Plan.
317. In dealing with the overall balance the Appellants sought to maintain that
however the balance was performed VSC would arise588. However, the starting
point in the Appellants’ balance is an assessment of Green Belt which seriously
underestimates the harms which, coupled with the absence of any recognition in
Professor May’s proof that the VSC test is more onerous than the exceptional
circumstances test, undermines any balance which he undertook.
318. With regard to the other benefits of the development, there is a large degree
of agreement regarding the weight to be given to these589. Those benefits where
there remains dispute between the parties regarding the weight are discussed in
more detail below.
319. First, with regard to the provision of the SANG required to mitigate the
recreational pressure of the development on the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC, this
is directly related to the effects of the development and necessary in order to
avoid an adverse effect to the integrity of a European site590. Without it,
planning permission could not lawfully be granted. It should not attract any
weight in the planning balance. The attribution of weight to the SANG based on
its early delivery and wider benefits to the community591 are undermined on the
Appellants’ own case. As emphasised by Samantha Ryan in relation to the sites
within the Councils’ five year HLS, SANG must be in place before the
development can commence. Early delivery is obligatory and not an additional
benefit592. Peter Hadfield indicated that he relied on the SANG as migratory
habitat for the bats which currently use the site for foraging, feeding and
584 Document CD1.6 Environmental Statement paragraphs 13.7.1, 13.9.1 page 236
585 Document ID65
586 Document CD12.8 Planning SOCG section 12 page 25 for the detail of the identified less
than substantial harm to the affected assets
587 Professor May in cross examination
588 Document APP15 paragraph 11.57 page 77
589 Document ID60 Table 4
590 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 SI 2017 No 1012, reg.63
591 Document APP15 paragraph 11.41 page 74
592 Samantha Ryan 5YHLS Roundtable
Page 86
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
commuting, some of which would be displaced from the areas of the site which
will be built on593. He made a similar comment in respect of ground nesting
birds. Jonathan Smith also referred to the effect of the SANG as a buffer
between the Grand Union Canal and the developed area of the site, which
resolved the concerns of the Canal and River Trust594. Matthew Chard relied on
the SANG in terms of landscape mitigation and claimed compensation for loss of
Green Belt. These are clear examples of the role of the SANG in mitigating the
various effects of the development rather than providing additional benefits to
which weight can be attached.
320. There was also a suggestion by the Appellants that the proposed SANG should
be given greater weight because the Council’s own strategic SANG at Bunkers
Park did not actually fulfil the requirements of SANG as an interceptor of
recreational activity, notwithstanding Natural England’s acceptance of the SANG
at Bunkers Park as appropriate mitigation. The Council’s mitigation strategy for
the Chilterns Beechwoods encompasses both SANG and SAMM, the latter of
which is a payment for the management and monitoring of access to the
Chilterns Beechwoods SAC to ensure that recreational impacts do not have an
unduly harmful effect on the SAC. The SAMM tariffs are calculated on the
assumption that SANG is successful in intercepting recreational users. If Bunkers
Park is inadequate as an interceptor site, then the SAMM tariffs for the Chilterns
Beechwoods SAC will be inadequate. This would mean that the Appellants’ own
SAMM contribution would not be sufficient to mitigate recreational impact on the
Chilterns Beechwoods, and therefore that planning permission should not be
granted on the basis of the contribution they offer. Professor May stated he was
not claiming any issue with the SAMM contribution and therefore his point was a
bad one.
321. The supplemental SANG is entitled to moderate weight on the basis that it will
enable other sites to come forward for development in Tring if a decision is made
in due course to allocate such sites595. However, as confirmed by Peter
Hadfield596, it also provides mitigatory habitat for the protected species that are
currently present on the site which will be displaced from the built up areas.
322. With regard to the weight to be given to new social infrastructure, this has
been overplayed by the Appellants. Both the primary school and provision for a
secondary school are required to mitigate the harmful effect the development
would otherwise have on local infrastructure. There would be no need for a new
primary school absent the development597. While additional capacity may enable
other developments to come forward in Tring, the extent to which that additional
capacity will be taken up depends on whether any sites for development are
allocated in Tring, which as agreed by Professor May is in turn dependent on the
eventual outcome of the Local Plan process598. A similar conclusion can be drawn
in relation to the proposed health and community facilities599.
593 Peter Hadfield examination in chief
594 Jonathan Smith examination in chief
595 Document DBC5 paragraph 7.11 page 53
596 In response to questions from the Inspector
597 Professor May in cross examination
598 Document DBC5 paragraphs 7.5-7.6 page 52; Professor May in cross examination
599 Document DBC5 paragraph 7.8 page 52
Page 87
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
323. With regard to the proposed orchards and allotments, there is already an
overprovision in the area600. When asked about the appetite for allotments,
Professor May was unable601 to point to any specific local demand, and only made
the generalised statement that there was ‘high demand across the country’. The
orchards and allotments do have some wider benefit for the residents of Tring,
and therefore limited rather than no weight should be accorded to them.
324. The sports facilities, bus service and station improvements are entitled to
moderate weight because, although in the main they mitigate the effects of
development, they also provide some additional benefit for the local
community602. It must also be noted that to ensure their commercial viability,
the sports facilities available to existing and future residents will be more limited
if there is no secondary school on the site.
325. Professor May complained that giving such benefits only limited or moderate
weight provided no incentive to developers to deliver those benefits603. However,
without the commitment to bring forward the necessary social infrastructure,
planning permission could not be granted at all, as is evident in reasons for
refusal 4 and 7.
326. The wider benefit of the public open space on the site is tempered by the fact
it would be within walking distance of only a limited number of properties on the
eastern side of Tring. There are existing large open spaces around Tring, such as
the 92 ha Tring Park604 emphasised on behalf of the Appellants605 which referred
to the “vast areas of publicly accessible countryside on the doorstep of Tring
residents” and the fact that “nobody in this area or in Tring is in any way
deprived of access to vast areas of countryside”606.
327. In terms of energy sustainability, the proposed fabric first approach with local
air source heat pumps and on-site renewable energy production through solar
panels are capable of delivering a 90% carbon reduction (regulated emissions)
and be carbon zero ready by 2030. This would be secured by condition and a
commitment to deliver a substantial number of homes at higher efficient
standards is a benefit of the appeal proposal. However, that needs to be seen in
context. As the Appellants’ evidence shows607, if the UK is to meet is climate
change commitments, comparable standards will need to be secured for all new
housing development. By the time the vast majority of the appeal scheme’s
dwellings come forward, the FHS will be in force requiring circa 75-80% fewer
emissions and possibly a higher standard. Viewed in this context, the benefit is a
moderate one.
328. Whilst the Local Plan evidence base was sufficient to persuade the Council that
exceptional circumstances existed for the release of the site from the Green Belt,
600 Document DBC5 paragraph 7.13 page 53
601 Professor May examination in chief
602 Document DBC5 paragraphs 7.7, 7.17-7.18 page 53
603 Professor May examination in chief
604 Martin Stickley cross examination
605 In a question put to Chris Berry
606 Chris Berry cross examination
607 Document APP8
Page 88
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the opportunity for its more detailed scrutiny through the Inquiry, has
demonstrated that the higher VSC bar is not attained. The site has some
advantages as a location for housing608, but there are undeniably disadvantages
and the appeal scheme serves to materially exacerbate those, rather than to
assimilate development and mitigate its effects.
329. The development therefore conflicts with the DP609 and the Framework610.
Conclusion
330. In conclusion, the considerations relied upon by the Appellants as
demonstrating the existence of VCS fall very well short of clearly demonstrating
that the Green Belt and other harms have been outweighed. The development
fails to comply with the DP or the Framework and would represent unsustainable
development. The appeal should be dismissed.
8 The Case for the Combined Objectors’ Group (Rule 6 Party)
I have reported the case on the basis of the oral evidence given at the Inquiry and
the closing submissions611 with additional references to the evidence submitted prior
to the Inquiry. The following is the gist of the material points made.
331. The Combined Objectors’ Group (COG) consists of The Chiltern Society, Grove
Fields Residents Association and Campaign for the Protection of Rural England
(CPRE) Hertfordshire. The Chiltern Society is a charitable body with almost
7,000 members that campaigns for the conservation and enhancement of the
Chilterns, which includes the Chilterns AONB and part of the London Green Belt.
The Society’s role in the planning system is co-ordinated through a Planning
Manager and a network of voluntary planning field officers. The Grove Fields
Residents Association (GFRA) was established in 2017 and consists of over 570
members across Tring and the surrounding villages. CPRE Hertfordshire acts to
protect countryside in Hertfordshire and is active in supporting local organisations
and communities to protect open spaces and rural activity from inappropriate
development and environmental degradation612.
332. The COG has stated that it welcomes new development, but it must be the
right number of houses, in the right place with the right supporting
infrastructure, enabling Tring to thrive whilst maintaining the market town
character. The LPA is taking its time to prepare and produce a plan, but that
does not mean that it should be perpetually punished when it is confronting the
necessary trade-offs. The delays are not in spite of a plan led system but are the
result of it. The Regulation 18 draft produced an unprecedented number of
responses from the community, and these require careful consideration. This is
608 It is in a sustainable location, and its size enables a significant proportion of affordable
housing as well as self-build and custom housing to be provided
609 Documents CD4.2 Policies CS1, CS5, CS10, CS 24 and CS25 and CD4.1 Saved Policies 97
and 108 of the Local Plan; Professor May in cross examination: While he did not carry out an
assessment of compliance with the development plan in his Proof, he confirmed that he also
considered the proposed development to conflict with the development plan
610 Document CD6.1 paragraph 147
611 Document ID78
612 Document COG2 paragraphs 3 to 5
Page 89
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the plan led system in action and paragraph 15 of the Framework indicates that
development is meant to be genuinely plan led. A direct impact of granting
permission for the appeal scheme would be a further erosion of the plan led
system and this weighs heavily against permission.
333. There are multiple sites available for development. The acute housing
challenges are not going to be solved by building on the appeal site. The Green
Belt should be permanently open and inappropriate development should only be
allowed where there are VSC which will only exist if the benefits of a scheme
clearly outweigh the impacts. This is an exceptionally high bar and the High
Court613 supports this as not being a quasi-mathematical exercise but an overall
assessment of whether the circumstances truly constitute VSC so that
development may be permitted notwithstanding the importance of the Green
Belt.
Affordable Housing
334. The provision of affordable housing at 45% is commendable; however, before
it is added to the consideration of whether there are VSC it must be scrutinised
and placed in its full context. The evidence for the Emerging DLP attracts ‘very
significant weight’614. That evidence indicates that the overwhelming majority
(87%) of those in need of affordable housing require social rent615. Although the
affordable housing provision has been altered so that it includes 25% social rent,
the remaining 88.75% will be out of reach to those in need of social rent.
335. No viability evidence has been submitted to accompany the offer of affordable
housing. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the proposed provision is
genuinely deliverable except for Professor May’s assertions, and he is not a
chartered surveyor616. Consent should make plain that permission is contingent
on delivering all the affordable homes. Also, any assessment of VSC should be
made in the knowledge that the Appellants have failed to demonstrate that no
more socially rented homes can be viably delivered. The failure to demonstrate
that the provision of affordable housing has been optimised or robustly secured
goes to whether there are VSC617.
Landscape, Character and Visual Harm
336. Landscape character is a resource that once lost to housing cannot be
realistically recovered. Once views are compromised, they cannot be re-
established. Even on the Appellants’ case, there is harm to landscape character
and views. Harm to the landscape character and visual outlook is distinct from
harm to the Green Belt and harm to the setting of the AONB618.
337. The Appellants case accepts that there is harm to the character. Matthew
Chard states that during the 10 year construction period there will be major
613 Sefton MBC v Secretary of State For Housing, Communities, And Local Government [2021]
EWHC 1082 (Admin)
614 Document APP15 paragraph 5.12
615 Document CD 8.1 page 112
616 Professor May in cross examination
617 Document COG0: raised in the Statement of Case paragraph 7.1
618 Accepted by Professor May in cross examination and Document COG0 Section 4
Page 90
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
adverse harm to the character of the agricultural fields, adverse harm to
hedgerows, trees, NCA 110 character area and Tring Gap Foothills LCA; and
overall there will be moderate adverse harm to the character, the site and its
immediate surroundings. At the end of construction, he states that there will still
be ‘Major’ adverse impacts on the character of the agricultural fields and there
will be adverse impacts on Chiltern’s NCA and the Tring Gap foothills LCA. He
accepts that there will be moderate adverse impacts to the night-time sky even
at year 15 and there will be harms to views during and after construction.
Pedestrians on national rights of way and along Marshcroft Lane, which forms a
popular access walk, will have their view compromised; and residential views will
be sorely and permanently compromised.
338. It is only at year 15 that these character, landscape and visual harms
attenuate on the Matthew Chard’s case to a negligible level. Realistically, this
means that even on the Appellants’ case there will be at least moderate adverse
impacts over a at least a twenty year horizon if the adverse impacts over the
construction period and the years of plant growth are combined. These impacts
should have been recognised, properly weighed and explicitly weighed in the
planning balance, regardless of the existence or absence of landscape and visual
impacts forming part of a reason for refusal.
339. Matthew Chard’s approach made the following omissions. He does not explain
how he combined judgments regarding susceptibility and value to result in
judgments concerning sensitivity, as required by the GLIVIA619, given that in
some cases he rounds up, whilst in others he rounds down. He omitted
viewpoints from high up upon the escarpments where there was seating but
substituted those for views which are heavily filtered by woodland620. The LVIA
does not note the Dacorum Borough Landscape Sensitivity Study (April 2020)
despite this forming the most recent, site specific GLIVIA compliant appraisal621.
Although he acknowledged that his assessment of the legacy effects with regards
to the character assessment depends on the landscape quality of the SANG
provision, there is no mention of the obvious negative features of the SANG such
as fencing. Marshcroft Lane has not been included within the character
assessment.
340. Matthew Chard’s view that there is a strong urban influence on the site is
unsubstantiated. Looking at the northern field, there are no urbanising features
on site; to the north there is a garden centre and cottages. To the east, south
and west there are fields or Marshcroft Lane. For the southern plot, to the north
and east there are fields, including an AONB, to the south is Station Road with
some heavily shielded houses. To the west there are large and undeveloped
back gardens. This is not an example of a strong urban influence.
619 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Third Edition paragraphs 3.28
and 3.29
620 Document COG1 Appendix 1: Landscape Statement on behalf of Tring Town Council
page 12
621 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Third Edition paragraphs 3.15 to
3.17 state that baseline studies should be informed by existing landscape character
assessments
Page 91
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
341. Matthew Chard’s view that the overall impact of the scheme on the agricultural
fields as a landscape resource at year 15 is negligible is not credible. All the
defining features of an agricultural field: the ploughing, the tilling, the openness
and the crops will be lost.
342. Matthew Chard’s view that it is a fragmented landscape is not tenable. Tring is
a nucleated settlement that nestles within a cohesive and shielded landscape622.
In terms of the visual impact, his view that the proposal would not have long
lasting effects on views from PRoWs 057 and 058 is not sustainable. The view of
the Chilterns will be reduced to occasional glimpses623. The residual view would
not be unpleasant but would not have the links to the wider countryside, which
are so apparent at the baseline stage624.
343. Of the visual effects predicted to arise from the proposed development, those
available from PRoWs 057 and 058, the AONB and on the approach to and from
Tring are of particular concern. Views from the Chilterns escarpment and higher
ground that encircles the eastern and southern sides of Tring are of high
sensitivity and of particular importance to appreciating the sylvan and well
contained setting of the town and its distinctive compact nature. For receptors
using the Grand Union Canal Walk, the foreground view of open farmland would
be truncated and new buildings of up to 3 storeys in height would have
encroached significantly closer to the viewer. Whilst new planting might be
delivered as part of the scheme and could provide some filtering of views, there
would be likely to remain a strong sense of development, vehicles and lighting
beyond the planting. The scarp backdrop to Tring would be screened.625
344. For receptors using Bulbourne Road, the viewer would be looking along a
primary access into a new large scale development. The proposed development
would introduce new buildings that would essentially fill the open farmland
setting to the existing settlement edge and block out the backdrop to the
Chilterns scarp that provide a sense of place and distinctiveness to the town.
This would be a permanent adverse change. New planting that might help to
‘further integrate’ built forms into the landscape could not be considered to
reduce this effect.626
Harm to the Setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
345. The site immediately abuts an AONB. It is part of its immediate setting as well
as forming the backdrop to impressive and important views from the Chilterns
escarpments. The Chilterns Conservation Board Position Statement on
Development states that ‘the best way of minimizing adverse impacts on the
setting of the AONB is through avoidance in the first place.’
346. The proposed development results in a scheme that would have long-lasting
adverse effects on the setting of the Chilterns AONB, and the visual amenity of
622 Nicola Brown examination in chief and re-examination
623 Tanya Kirk in oral evidence
624 Tanya Kirk in oral evidence
625 Document COG1 Appendix 1: Landscape Statement on behalf of Tring Town Council
paragraphs 4.23 to 4.26
626 Document COG1 Appendix 1: Landscape Statement on behalf of Tring Town Council
paragraph 4.27
Page 92
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the recognised views from the Chilterns escarpment627. Given the high bar that
is set in national policy for the conservation and enhancement of valued
landscapes such as the AONB and its setting and that the Council was advised
that the proposal would not do this and would be harmful to the AONB, it is
surprising that no separate landscape grounds for refusal have been cited.
347. The proposal will harm the setting of the AONB in that it will interfere with
views out of the AONB, including the Ridgeway National Trail; interfere with
views of the AONB, including from PRoWs 057, 058 and the Grand Union Canal
Walk and Marshcroft Lane; there will be a loss of tranquillity through the
introduction of lighting, noise and traffic movements; and there will be a loss of
openness628. These impacts will be severe, longstanding and noticeable as the
site serves as a critical buffer between the AONB and Tring629. Moreover, the flat
land adjacent to the site is an example of outstanding natural beauty which
warrants the protection afforded to it under the Framework.
Green Belt
348. The Green Belt’s two defining features are the absence of development and its
permanence. Visual harm is defined by the absence or presence of development,
whereas Matthew Chard’s judgment was informed by the quality of that
development. He also attempts to average out purposes mechanistically without
explanation.
349. There is definitional Green Belt harm since land which was free from
development will be developed. There will be harm to spatial openness; tranquil
open land will be permanently lost. There will be harm to visual openness as
Green Belt land will no longer appear free from development. There will be harm
to the first Green Belt purpose as, left unrestricted, London will grow
exponentially and will seep through to any cracks along transport corridors to
grow if given the chance. There will also be harm to the third Green Belt purpose
as it is a large and substantial encroachment into the countryside. In addition,
there will be harm to the fifth green belt purpose as it is a large and ambitious
scheme and, if given permission, will operate as a persuasive precedent to
developers up and down the country that there is no need to exhaust brownfield
sites.630
350. The arguments put forward by the Appellants to justify abandoning the Green
Belt in the form of the acute housing challenges this country is facing could be
replicated at inquiry after inquiry. This would plainly be death by a thousand cuts
to the Green Belt were this development to be allowed without demonstrating
VSC631.
627 Document COG1 Appendix 1: Landscape Statement on behalf of Tring Town Council
paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4
628 Document COG1 Appendix 1: Landscape Statement on behalf of Tring Town Council
paragraph 4.31
629 Document COG1 Appendix 1: Landscape Statement on behalf of Tring Town Council
paragraphs 5.5 to 5.9
630 Document COG2 paragraphs 12-24
631 Document ID17: Professor May acknowledged that planning inspector Wilkinson had not
dismissed this as an invalid argument in a previous case and it is one that must be considered
Page 93
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Very Special Circumstances
351. Development covering in excess of 50 ha in the Green Belt should be the
exception, never expected. No other planning consideration enjoys a higher
status within planning. VSC are required to justify inappropriate development on
the Green Belt. VSC will not exist unless the benefits of a proposal clearly
outweigh the harms; or in other words, benefits clearly outweighing the harms
are necessary for permission, but not sufficient as all the circumstances must be
looked at. The importance of keeping land permanently open must be
consciously considered.
352. Provision that mitigates a development’s own impacts is not a benefit. The
harms of the scheme are severe, and legion given its unprecedented scale.
There is substantial landscape and visual harm which, given that these impacts
are irreversible and long-lasting, should attract substantial weight. There is harm
to the setting of an AONB which demands great weight, as in paragraph 176 of
the Framework. There is definitional harm to the Green Belt. There are harms to
the underlying purposes of the Green Belt as the countryside is going to be badly
encroached; development such as this discourages developers from robustly
considering brownfield sites, Dacorum borders the London Borough of Barnet and
therefore this Green Belt restricts the urban sprawl of London. The site also acts
in preserving openness and the countryside. There is loss of BMV agricultural
land. There is heritage harm which attracts great weight.
353. The Appellants’ case presented by Professor May has made no attempt to
explicitly weigh the landscape and visual harms arising from this development.
There has been a failure to precisely distinguish between the ‘benefits’ of the
scheme that are mitigation of the site’s inherent impacts. There has been a
failure to bring to the attention material matters despite the professional
obligation to bring forward everything that is relevant and apply a fair and even-
handed approach e.g. whilst the Appellants are happy to ‘bank’ the benefits
arising from construction jobs for a ten year period they are not happy to mark
down the character impacts for the same time.
354. The scheme’s purported benefits are not very special either together or
singularly. The affordable housing does not predominately address the pressing
need for socially rented homes and there is no justification provided for this offer
in terms of viability argument. The development is a further car led development
dominated by market homes. The additional facilities (SANG, education
provision, community infrastructure) mostly mitigate the development’s own
impact. It attempts to undermine the principal of a democratically accountable
plan led system.
355. The proposal represents a substantial land grab and is within the immediate
setting of an AONB. The numerous authorities and previous decisions cited by
the Appellants cannot justify this degree of encroachment. For the reasons set
out above, planning permission should be refused.
Page 94
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
9 The Cases for Other Interested Parties
Oral representations were made at the Inquiry. These are summarised below and
are supported by written statements. The following is the gist of the material points
made.
Sue Yeomans632
356. Sue Yeomans is a founder member of the Chiltern Countryside Group,
established in 2008 to help protect the Chilterns and its AONB. She is concerned
that her home and her enjoyment of it would be negatively impacted by the
proposal, which would be adjacent to the rear garden in the Green Belt. The
proposal would build on a significant proportion of the Green Belt which is
adjacent to and informs the setting of the Chilterns AONB. It would destroy
Green Belt, productive agricultural land, cause light and noise pollution and
completely change the visual character of the AONB as seen from one of its
highest points at Ivinghoe Beacon. The land has the protection of the Chilterns
Beechwoods SAC. The scale of development would be inappropriate to the
current size of Tring. Other concerns are regarding the adequacy of the
Appellants’ contributions towards new schools and a health centre and flooding.
Steve Ballantyne633
357. Steve Ballantyne objected on the grounds that the proposal would result in
built development on the Green Belt and adjacent to an AONB when the Council
are reviewing the availability of brownfield sites in urban areas to minimise the
need to build on the Green Belt. The scale would be inappropriate to the current
size of Tring and would result in pressure on the infrastructure and changes to
the character of the historic town for ever. The schools and health facility
proposed may not be built and that land could then be used for more housing. It
would also exacerbate flood risk in an area where the fields are prone to flooding.
Philip Moore634
358. Philip Moore opposed the proposal which he considered to be of a scale that
should only be brought forward as part of a strategic local plan. It would damage
the Green Belt, lead to ineffective use of land by building on some of the BMV
agricultural land in the Borough and lead to unsustainable car dependency. It
would have a terrible impact on the surrounding nationally important countryside
and would have a negative impact on the historic character of Tring town.
Tim Amsden635
359. Tim Amsden has lived locally to the area of the development all his life,
40 years of it being in Tring. He was a Dacorum Borough councillor for 4 years,
and 20 years a Tring Town councillor, including three as Town Mayor.
360. The proposed development would be at a distance from Tring town centre that
cannot be bridged in practical terms. The recent development by CALA Homes
632 Document ID5
633 Document ID9
634 Document ID14
635 Document ID34
Page 95
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
off Icknield Way (‘Roman Park’) consists of 200 or so houses, but is isolated from
the town centre, being a 20-minute walk away. It has no facilities and will have
no meaning or identity of its own. The same would apply at the appeal proposed
development. With poor public transport services, it would be dependent on car
ownership and use, or else a 30-minute walk, to access the town centre. Much of
the traffic would use Brook Street, which has one-way working. The town centre
has inadequate parking and development on such a scale is not capable of
absorption by the town’s infrastructure.
361. The development would increase pressure on the local countryside for
recreation; the Ashridge Estate, and Tring Woodlands, have already been found
to be suffering from overuse. It would reduce the amount of local land for
farming, at a time when domestic food production is more vital than ever. It
would attract yet more wealthy people to an already prosperous area,
entrenching existing inequalities.
362. Further housing on the scale proposed is not needed for Tring people; social
housing providers are not even able to discriminate in favour of Tring applicants.
Housing should go to places where it is needed. Growth is not inevitable, or
necessarily desirable, and a fundamental shift in attitudes is called for. Proposals
of the kind proposed are self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating, creating yet more
pressure from developers. The proposal would result in Tring ceasing to be a
compact, rural, market town with its own unique character, and it would become
an amorphous, anonymous residential sprawl.
Elizabeth Hamilton636
363. Elizabeth Hamilton has made comments on the Ecological Assessment637. With
regard to bats, the consultation response to the application from Hertfordshire
Ecology638 states: “I found the assessment to verge on the superficial and
mitigation measures limited and poorly defined; reliance on hedgehog gateways
and bird/bat boxes is not adequate for a development of this scale”. Trees within
the site were assessed and some noted for their potential to support roosting
bats. The Assessment states that those with potential will be subject to further
tree climbing surveys, once a tree removal plan has been prepared for the site,
to confirm the presence or absence of roosting bats. The ‘European Protected
Species’ status of bats generally and the rarity of one species found on the site
suggests that an earlier and more robust survey of bat activity and roosting
should be carried out. Trapping and radio tracking could be used. Impacts
arising from the development proposal on a significant foraging area for a local
roost could impact on the local distribution or abundance of a species, in
particular those species which are locally scarce or rare.
364. Use of the proposed development site by Barbastelles was recorded across all
the bat survey sessions. Reductions in suitable foraging areas mean bats have to
fly further to suitable sites, reducing feeding time. This is critical in particular for
breeding females. Any artificial lighting where bats roost, commute or feed can
be extremely disturbing to all species. Most bats generally avoid foraging and
636 Documents ID2 and ID27
637 Documents CD1.26a and b
638 Document CD3.20
Page 96
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
commuting areas if these are affected by light spill as this can prevent bats from
reaching their habitual foraging areas. Barbastelles are among a group of bat
species which generally avoid all streetlights. With no legal requirements
concerning lighting installed by private individuals on the outside of buildings, the
impact on bats could be severe. Car headlights and glare, and in particular
sports floodlighting, are potential additional obstacles to bats. Newly planted
vegetation may not contribute to light attenuation for many years depending on
the plant species, during which time bat populations may be irreparably
damaged. There is also the risk that such vegetation may subsequently be cut
down or heavily trimmed. Bats are also predated by cats.
365. In terms of birds, the Assessment suggests that ground-nesting birds will be
able to utilise areas of open grassland incorporated into the green infrastructure,
which is unlikely outside the SANG where the open grassland areas would be
under heavy and frequent recreational, sporting, and educational use. In
practice disturbance from free-running dogs could prevent successful nesting in
the SANG. Displacement of these species from the agricultural land would
represent harm to Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act
2006639 section 41 species.
366. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that there would
not be an unacceptable impact to protected and priority species and their
habitats. This was needed to enable the LPA to demonstrate the proposal’s
compliance under section 40 NERC Act 2006, and to be able to properly assess
any potential impacts upon protected species. Without this information, the LPA
are unable to properly assess the proposal and impacts on legally protected and
priority species. The proposal would thereby be contrary to policy GEN7 of the
DLP and the Framework.
367. The ecological interest of the agricultural fields has not been established. A
key species group (invertebrates) was not surveyed, some survey timings were
sub-optimal, and the habitats support bats and Section 41 bird species. Many of
the plant species recorded, although common, support the food chains present
on the site, provide nectar and pollen for pollinators or are foodplants for insects
including butterflies and moths. The vegetation at the base of hedges and other
long grassy areas can be expected to shelter numerous species overwinter,
including the stages of invertebrates’ life cycles. Arable soils are rich in
invertebrates. Farmland is a priority habitat in the Hertfordshire Biodiversity
Action Plan640, and should be protected for food production.
368. Not all the hedgerows on site would be retained since gaps would be created
to accommodate access points and roads. Habitat connectivity would not be
maintained across the site as there would be a central road bisecting the site.
New native tree planting would not offset unavoidable losses to existing trees for
many years. It is unlikely that new trees would mature sufficiently to provide
potential roosting spaces for bats for 100 years or more. The proximity of the
site to the Grand Union Canal, and beyond that the woodland and species-rich
grassland of Aldbury Nowers and Pitstone Hill, and beyond that the core area of
639 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as updated by the Environment Act
2021
640 Documents CD1.26a and b paragraph 5.2.21/23
Page 97
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the Ashridge Estate with its varied habitats, contribute to the significance of the
site for bats. This area is largely free from light pollution and the railway is set in
a deep cutting.
369. Claims that the SANG would prevent additional impacts on the Ashridge
Estate, Tring Reservoirs, the Grand Union Canal network and College Lake are
very contentious and not supported by any evidence, although assessments on
the designated sites in question were requested by several responses to the
Scoping Opinion. Residents of the proposed development would wish to visit
these places. Should the SANG draw visitors from outside the proposed
development, this would have implications as to the adequacy of the size of the
SANG. The vehicle access to the car park through the housing areas would
introduce additional traffic, pollution, and a potential hazard to the residential
areas. The car park capacity appears insufficient given the claims about the
SANG’s potential attractiveness to draw existing visitor use away from the SAC,
Tring Reservoirs, and other local sites.
370. With regard to flood risk and surface drainage, comments from local residents
posted on the Council’s consultation website refer to the site flooding, with water
sometimes persisting for months.
371. The proposed development can be expected to impact on the quiet enjoyment
of the PRoWs close to the Canal which run along the edge of the site. There is
some traffic noise in the vicinity of Tring Station and Bulbourne, but for most of
its length this route is quiet and enjoys a fine view of the high land in the AONB
to the south.
372. The surrounding important ecological resources which include the SAC sites at
Tring Woodlands and Ashridge, Tring Park’s chalk grasslands, Aldbury Nowers,
Pitstone Hill and Tring Reservoirs, make the area one of the most sensitive in the
county to development of the scale proposed, and to the associated pressure on
sites it would generate.
373. The BNG figure claimed for the proposed development is grossly overstated.
The habitats attributed to the ‘Mini Metric’ are too low in quality to meet
guidelines for an acceptable SANG. This has the effect of substantially increasing
the BNG attributed to the Main Metric.
Peter Davidson641
374. Peter Davidson submitted a report which analyses the proposal’s TA. His
report suggests that the TA seriously under-estimates the transport impacts of
the proposed development. Using information largely from the TA itself, the
report shows what the transport impacts would be and what mitigation measures
would really be needed if the development was built.
375. The scale of the development increases Tring by about one third. Tring is
already congested. Its car parks are full through much of the day, with it being
difficult to get into Tesco car park at peak shopping times. Its schools are full.
Its doctors’ surgeries are already very busy. Tring’s through traffic has bypass
routes to two sides of the triangle containing it, but it does not have a bypass on
641 Documents ID3 and ID32
Page 98
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
its third side to take the north-south through traffic. The development’s two
access roads and its ‘main street’ spine road would act as an effective bypass for
this north-south through traffic, and the development has not been planned for
this.
376. There would be extra traffic on the two weak bridges over the Canal and
railway line along Bulbourne Road. The proposed bus service would not be self-
financing. Tring town centre and Tesco car park would need at least one third
more parking spaces and the station one sixth more parking spaces. The
junction of Marshcroft Lane with the development’s main street would be an
accident black spot where pedestrians, some with prams, young children on small
bikes and horses would come into conflict with busy car traffic from the
development, school drop-offs and shops, and fast through ‘rat running’ traffic
trying to bypass east of Tring in a north-south direction.
377. The TA’s baseline traffic counts which measure the current traffic levels, are
too low and unrepresentative, and key junctions were missed. No journey time
survey has been carried out and no accident data was collected for key locations
such as Grove Road where there is a primary school and is traffic calmed with
road cushions. No traffic count has been taken on the important Grove Road/
Wingrave Road junction. All of these would be affected by the development. The
accessibility to key local services in the TA is using statistics about non-car
owners which were applied to car owners who do not walk so far. This has the
effect of having a car traffic baseline lower than it should be.
378. The trip generations were underestimated and were distributed to biased
destinations which underestimated the impact on Tring’s junctions. This, in
combination with the low baseline, has led to an underestimation of which
junctions would need mitigation measures to accommodate the additional traffic
produced by the development.
379. WSP forecast the impact of the development based on traffic flows from HCC’s
COMET county transport model and concluded that twenty junctions needed
mitigation measures. This was consistent with the observation of a third more
traffic from the additional one third more people brought into Tring by the
development. Stantec’s reasons for its assessment of three junctions requiring
mitigation measures are not valid. A Table which summarises the worst-turn
using COMET demonstrates the 20 junctions where a volume/capacity ratio below
about 85% has not be achieved to demonstrate that the junction would function
properly even with considerable congestion and delay.
380. The additional delay to Tring’s traffic caused by the development amounts to a
penalty of £24 million to Tring’s economy, which would probably far outweigh any
economic benefit that the development might bring, and it would have a serious
impact on Tring’s economy.
Page 99
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Jennifer O’Brien642
381. Jennifer O’Brien expressed concerns about the impact of the development on
Tring’s Green Belt and the depth of community feeling against the development,
which included referring to a petition against the development.
Rachel Moore643
382. Rachel Moore expressed concern about the benefits that the Appellants have
put forward to demonstrate that VSC exist. Any large site would deliver housing
as a benefit. The appeal site was initially in the draft Emerging DLP for
consultation to meet the housing targets which, as the SofS644 has set out is now
likely to become an advisory starting point. The other benefits are intrinsic to
doing any development at all, for example on sustainability. The Appellants’
argument about filling a 'gap' is not valid in that the town and station are
situated where they are for historical and geographical reasons and the space in
between was deliberately designated Green Belt, on the edge of the AONB. The
Prime Minister gave assurance on 25 January 2023, in relation to the Chilterns,
that "this Government will always protect our precious green spaces. The recent
changes in our planning reforms will ensure that we can protect the Green Belt
everywhere.” There is no agreed new Local Plan yet because residents did not
agree with what the Appellants want to do. How then is it logical, let alone
democratic, to conclude that this very situation means that the appeal proposal
should go ahead?
Chilterns Conservation Board645
383. The Chilterns Conservation Board (CCB) was established by the Countryside
and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 with a primary purpose set out in section 87
that includes: (1) It is the duty of a conservation board in the exercise of their
functions, to have regard to (a) the purpose of conserving and enhancing the
natural beauty of the AONB, and (b) the purpose of increasing the understanding
and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the AONB.
384. The CCB considers the site to be part of a valued landscape. The Chilterns
AONB Management Plan is prepared by the CCB in partnership with, and on
behalf of, the local authorities that have parts of the AONB within their
boundaries. It is a material consideration, and reference to it by all decision-
makers is a good way to demonstrate that the duty of section 85 of the CROW
Act 2000 has been observed.
385. The Chilterns AONB is recognised for the unusual amount of built development
that is present in the landscape and around its edges, and for the pressures for
development that it is under. This is explicitly recognised in the Government’s
Landscapes Review for special attention and is part of the reason why Natural
England is currently taking action on two fronts in the Chilterns. First, it is
looking at extending the boundary of the AONB, and second, it is looking into
642 Document ID36
643 Document ID37
644 WMS 6 December 2022
645 Documents ID48 and ID49
Page 100
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
new ways of managing the governance of the AONB, including strengthening the
status of the Management Plan.
386. The CCB expressed its concern that, despite the attention paid to landscape
and AONB issues in the Officer’s Report to the Planning Committee, attention has
not been translated into a reason for refusal. There is no evidence that the
report has addressed paragraph 176 of the Framework, which states that
development within the setting of protected landscapes (i.e. National Parks, The
Broads and AONBs) should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or
minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas. This policy post-dates the
work that the Council did to assess sites for inclusion in its Emerging DLP, and
the consultation on the local plan itself. All the sites considered in the plan need
to be re-assessed in relation to the new policy, since it fundamentally alters the
context.
387. The policy brings the setting of the AONB into the ‘policies’ of the Framework
relating to an ‘area or asset of particular importance’ in the senses used in
paragraph 11, and that, arguably, the presumption in favour of sustainable
development should be disapplied. Paragraph 11 indicates that LPAs do not have
to plan to meet or exceed the guideline figure derived from the standard method
for assessing local housing need when setting their local plan requirement if that
would conflict with the policies of the Framework that support limited
development.
388. The CCB’s outstanding objection to the draft Emerging DLP questioned
whether the Council’s stated reason justifying the quantum of growth in the Local
Plan, which related to the regeneration of Hemel Hempstead, justified the levels
of growth that the Council was proposing in the setting of the AONB on the
northern edge of Hemel Hempstead itself, let alone in Berkhamsted and Tring
which are not towns that are in obvious need of regeneration.
389. The Chilterns AONB is designated on the basis of the identified natural beauty
of the land, regardless of whether it is part of a colloquial understanding of what
the ‘Chilterns’ is. The designation of the AONB depends on:
a) The land being characterised as demonstrating outstanding natural beauty,
which is a very high bar;
b) the land being identified as ‘desirable’ to designate; and
c) a defensible boundary being present.
390. The low land below the scarp to the east of the appeal site is part of the AONB.
It has been assessed as demonstrating outstanding natural beauty. It would not
have been designated otherwise.
391. The Community has a reasonable expectation that the Government’s policies
expressed through the Framework, and the language used by Ministers, should
be upheld both strategically and in decisions. The issue in the draft Emerging
DLP was whether its development strategy was consistent with the Framework in
terms of the policies that seek to protect ‘areas or assets of particular
importance’ such as those listed in footnote 7.
Page 101
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Councillor Sally Symington646
392. Sally Symington is a Hertfordshire County Councillor, Tring Division. She
indicated that she has received numerous emails from residents in Tring opposing
the new development due its scale and impact on the town. The proposed
development would be disproportionate to the size of the original settlement in
terms of number of new homes and land area occupied. Building new homes
would not bring the town centre any closer to the station but a regular bus
service and safe walking/ cycling route would mitigate that issue. The proposal
would cause further damage to both Tring’s historic town centre and the Chiltern
Beechwoods SSSI at Ashridge. The proposed SANG would not substitute for
access to the AONB.
393. The 50mph speed limit proposed by HCC along Station Road is inconsistent
with promoting active travel and safety. The bridge over the Canal at Tring
Station cannot be widened enough to accompany a cycleway. As a result, there
would be an ongoing pressure to use cars to get to the station. Tring Station
does not have the capacity to increase further car parking. The proposed
development would add to the problem of pinch points on the local highway
network which cannot be mitigated by road widening.
394. The proposed development does not address the need for cohesive and co-
located sports facilities in Tring. Standing alone, the development does not
warrant a new secondary school in Tring. There is also an existing sewage
capacity issue in the area.
395. The historic village of Aldbury would be significantly impacted by the new
development as it is the gateway to the AONB and facilities at Ashridge. Aldbury
Parish Council would like a cycle/ footway from Tring Station to the village and
the provision of this will be essential if the development proceeds. Residents are
also concerned about the length of the construction period and its impact on
Tring town. Whilst accepting the need for more affordable houses of a higher
quality, the proposal is the wrong development in the wrong place.
Gagan Mohindra MP647
396. Gagan Mohindra is the Member of Parliament for South West Hertfordshire,
having been first elected in December 2019 and has been a resident of Tring for
about 2.5 years. He is opposed to the proposal in that there has been strong
local opposition, with about 100 of his constituents contacting him. He referred
to a petition signed by over 1,000 people and that about 300 objected to the
application. In January the then Housing Minister, Lucy Frazer, stated that "two
words sum up what we want; they are ‘local consent’”. Anyone attempting to
argue that this appeal proposal has ‘local consent’ would have a very hard time
doing so. He also referred to proposed amendments to the Framework in that
the housing numbers would be a guide and that local people would be at the
centre of the planning process.
646 Document ID38
647 Document ID56A
Page 102
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
397. The proposal would be detrimental to the area and would add about 3,000
more people to Tring, increasing it by about 30%. This would result in an
increase car usage, with the railway station being distant from Tring itself and
residents using it to commute into London. It would be in the Green Belt, with
VSC not being demonstrated, and would be in the setting of an AONB.
398. New housing should be considered in the Local Plan process, with a pause in
the Council’s local plan preparation to allow more work on examining suitable
sites. The appeal site is in the wrong place for housing, the Local Plan is being
reviewed and there will be a government change in tone for housing demand in
the Levelling-Up Bill.
10 Written Representations
Written representations were made during the Inquiry, at the appeal stage and at the
application stage648, of which the main concerns expressed are similar to those that I
have summarised under the Council’s case and the cases for the COG and other
interested parties. The following is the gist of the material points made.
399. Nicky Hulse649 has expressed concerns about the effect of the proposal on
educational provision in the area. The Appellants use of HCC’s pupil yield
calculator to estimate the number of children who would be accommodated in the
proposed development appears to be a conservative estimate, bearing in mind
Tring is an area which attracts families due to the excellent schooling and
beautiful surroundings. Although Tring could not accommodate these children in
its schools, the data does not seem to show a full picture of the potential number
of children in a development of the size proposed.
400. Moira Freeman Lea650 has been a resident of the small settlement at ‘Tring
Station’ since 1994. She has commented that the appeal site is within sight of
an SSSI, which will be spoilt by increased footfall, and is near to the Ridgeway
National Trail. She has suggested that the area does not need more housing as
many have been built at nearby towns, such as Aylesbury. She has expressed
concerns about the effect on the local roads and the hospital at Stoke Mandeville
as well as local flooding. However, her main concern is regarding the proposed
alterations to Tring railway station forecourt, and the blocking of access to Fog
cottages. She has supported these concerns with a video and photograph
showing the usage of the forecourt. She has indicated that, because the road is
uneven and sometimes waterlogged, the cycle path is too narrow for use by
pedestrians and cyclists, there is lack of space on the forecourt, and the bus
service to Aldbury is under threat, new residents will be likely to wish to drive
and park at the station, which would have insufficient parking to meet the
demand.
401. Councillor Penny Hearn651 has stated the concerns of some of her constituents
in objecting to the proposal, which by itself she has suggested would increase
648 Documents and representations summarised in Document CD2.4: Committee Report and
submitted in response to the appeal prior to, and during, the Inquiry
649 Document ID28
650 Document ID28A
651 Document ID12
Page 103
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Tring’s population by a quarter, and yet there is nothing in the proposal that
would increase or improve infrastructure in the town. Moreover, it would not
resolve any of the existing and future planning issues that there are in the town,
for example, education, health, parking and leisure facilities.
402. The concerns expressed in writing by many local residents in objecting to the
proposal at the application and appeal stage include those of the COG and other
individuals and parties who appeared at the Inquiry. I have summarised these
concerns. The first, and probably the main, concern is that the whole site is in a
designated Green Belt, which can only be released for development in
exceptional & VSC. The proposal fails to fulfil the statutory criteria.
403. Some objectors have referred to the Council’s review of the Local Plan,
following community feedback from the consultation, with the intention to
consider brownfield and urban sites within the Borough, rather than release
Green Belt. They have suggested that it is imperative that this review should be
finalised before any decisions are made on releasing Green Belt, particularly that
of such a substantial nature and in such a significant location for the Chilterns
and the Borough. Therefore, the proposal is unwarranted and premature.
404. The site is currently a beautiful natural space, providing open views towards
the Chilterns AONB and the Grand Union Canal, which are easily accessible to the
many people who already enjoy its peace, mature green landscape and wildlife,
by walking, cycling, running, horse-riding, boating and fishing. It cannot be
replaced by an artificial man made 'green area' which will take years to mature if
ever built.
405. The site adjoins and informs the setting for the Chilterns AONB and will
therefore have an extremely high adverse impact upon that landscape, which is
protected under statute by the CROW Act 2000. Development will be visible from
the high points of the AONB, such as Ivinghoe Beacon, thus destroying its rural
and peaceful green character.
406. The appeal site falls within the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC. Mitigation would be
required to alleviate visitor pressure on Ashridge and Tring Woodlands. The site
falls within the Zone of Influence and should be protected from development of
any kind.
407. The site is BMV agricultural land. Nationally, we need to increase our food
self-sufficiency. The site is currently in use for arable crops. This contribution to
our nation's food would be lost forever.
408. The large number of buildings which include 1,400 houses plus 2 schools, a
community hub and associated roads, would drastically and adversely change the
rural setting and character of the market town of Tring forever. The size of the
proposed development would be far greater than is appropriate for the present
size of the town, which has already been extended recently by a large and
ongoing housing development on its western edge. The hamlet of Tring Station
would be overwhelmed.
409. Tring requires more affordable housing for key workers and young people,
developed by a Housing Association/shared ownership or other in conjunction
with the Council to thrive as an inclusive community. As there are few
‘executive’ jobs in the area, the proposed development will be mainly inhabited
Page 104
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
by commuters, albeit some part time. The development adds to the suburban
sprawl in the area.
410. The proposal would cause harm to the setting of the locally listed Pendley
Manor Historic Park. The development would also affect the historic designed
long views from Ashridge at Duncombe and Aldbury Terraces, towards Tring,
which have recently been the subject of a listing application to Historic England.
The effect on Ashridge, Tring Park and Pendley Manor landscapes is contrary to
the Framework and the Council’s Heritage policies.
411. There will be a vast increase in traffic to and from any development onto
single carriageway roads, one with a narrow bridge where access is controlled by
traffic lights. The access to the proposed development from the A41 via the
Grove Road/ Cow Lane/ Station Road junction is inadequate and the junction is
not suited to the demands of increased traffic levels. The current road cannot
cope with the inevitable rise in traffic heading to and from the A41. The
proposed cycleways and footpaths will not tempt residents to completely
abandon their cars to reach either the station or the town centre. It would be too
far to walk back from town centre shops with heavy shopping bags.
412. The proposal ignores extra demand on hospital health care, which is already
under pressure. Building a health centre, which will only serve new housing,
does not alleviate demand on local hospitals. There is no guarantee that
authorities responsible for healthcare and educational provision within the
Borough will be willing to facilitate or financially contribute towards the schools,
health centre and other community resources proposed.
413. The timeframe of the development over 10 years (2023-2033) means long
drawn-out adverse impacts of construction and loss of amenity. There would be
an increased demand on local resources without any obligation from the
developer to provide infrastructure. There would also be other associated
adverse effects, especially for neighbouring residents and parking in the town
centre and at Tring Station.
414. The area is prone to flooding. This will either result in flooding of the proposed
dwellings, or a surplus of water being diverted into other parts of Tring, with
unknown consequences. The runoff of water with added phosphates and nitrates
that will enter the local watercourse will always be a problem. Water supply and
sewage services are already under strain in the area and the huge increased
demand is likely to exacerbate both, to the detriment of current residents.
Thames Water has been called out in increasing frequency to attend to sewage
problems and water pressure issues. Also, there is no mention of how
broadband/electricity supplies will address the increased demand from the
proposal in an ecological way and to not add further strain to the local services.
415. The Council no longer intends to allocate a substantial amount of housing to
Tring. Instead it will take a more considered local view of actual housing need
and to prioritise the use of existing brownfield land. In 2022, Dacorum has
delivered ‘in excess of the target set by Government, with a record year for
delivery despite the global pandemic.’ Tring has already made a substantial
contribution relative to its size in this delivery with 226 dwellings (including 90
affordable units) on the western edge of the town, consisting of 104 houses
Page 105
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
across 3 schemes in Brook Street, High Street, and the Aylesbury Road, and a
further 53 dwellings scheduled for Akeman Street.
416. L&Q Estates have a commercial interest in the site known as ‘Land at New
Mill’, which is about a 15 ha site located immediately to the south-western
boundary of the appeal site. They seek to ensure that access could be
accommodated on Bulbourne Road for the land at New Mill to be developed at an
appropriate stage in the future, alongside the appeal proposal.
417. Some letters in support of the proposal have been received that have included
arguments regarding the high price of houses in Tring, the sustainability of the
proposal, the provision of affordable housing, new facilities and open space and
the proposed connections with Tring railway station.
11 Planning Obligations
418. Following the close of the Inquiry, I have received an engrossed section 106
Agreement, dated 5 June 2023652, and a completed UU, dated 31 May 2023653 for
the appeal development, which include those planning obligations in the draft
section 106 Agreement and draft UU discussed at the Inquiry654. I have
examined the planning obligations to determine whether they meet the tests in
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) Regulation 122. These are that
the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in
scale and kind to the development.
419. The Council and HCC have provided documents to demonstrate CIL compliance
for the appeal proposal’s planning obligations655. I have also taken into account
the discussions held at the Inquiry to satisfy myself that the obligations meet the
necessary tests. I have summarised below my views as to whether the planning
obligations, including potential contributions, meet the CIL tests.
420. The section 106 Agreement with the Council includes an obligation to ensure
that 45% of the total number of dwellings to be provided on the site would be
affordable housing units. Of these, the Appellants have agreed with the Council a
proposed tenure split of 40% affordable rent, 25% social rent, 25% First Homes
and 10% intermediate housing, which would be secured by the obligation. This
accords with CS Policy CS18, which requires housing developments to provide a
choice of homes to comprise a range of housing types, sizes and tenure, housing
for those with disabilities and affordable housing in accordance with Policy CS19.
CS Policy CS19 provides an overall policy objective of 35% affordable housing
with a 75/25 affordable rent/intermediate housing tenure and, for ‘Greenfield’
sites, it usually requires 40% affordable housing. The Government now requires
25% of affordable homes to be ‘First Homes’. Although the obligation would
exceed policy requirements in terms of its provision, it would address an
identified need.
652 Document ID85
653 Document ID84
654 Documents ID43, ID44, ID45, ID69, ID70, ID71 and ID72
655 Documents ID46, ID46A, ID58 and ID73
Page 106
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
421. An obligation to secure 140 dwellings (10%) to be constructed to meet the
Extra Care Housing Standards and provided as ‘Extra Care’ housing’ is in
accordance with policy guidance to contribute to housing provision for older
people. Furthermore, paragraph 62 of the Framework identifies the range of
housing types required, which includes for older persons.
422. An obligation to secure the provision of serviced plots within the development
for self-build/ custom build homes to be constructed, the total to be 5% of the
dwellings, is necessary to ensure that the development would accord with
Government policy that requires LPAs to make such a provision. Paragraph 62 of
the Framework explains that LPAs should provide opportunities for people who
wish to commission or build their own homes. The provision is based on the
Appellants’ Housing Needs Statement656 and South West Hertfordshire Local
Housing Needs Assessment (2020).
423. I am satisfied that an obligation to secure a site for National Health Service
(NHS) primary or secondary care services or ancillary services, including general
practitioner services, and a contribution of £1.8 million (index linked) towards
NHS healthcare is necessary to address an increased need for health services
from the future residents. The sum is calculated using a formula based on the
number of units proposed and therefore related in scale, not considering any
existing deficiencies or shortfalls. The Council has indicated that the proposed
increase in residents would mainly impact on the Rothschild House Group Practice
(RHG) and their branch surgery in Tring town centre which has limited ability to
absorb any increase in patient population. Therefore, additional health care
provision for the residents of the 1,400 dwellings would be required, as the
current local GP practices do not have the capacity to absorb the resulting
increase in the number of additional patients. CS Policy CS23 relates to the
provision of social infrastructure within the Borough. The explanatory text of the
policy outlines that this infrastructure includes health facilities. The land would
be capable of accommodating a surgery for additional capacity over and above
that required to meet the resulting demand from the development itself.
424. An obligation to secure the transfer of facilities, which include any or all of the
allotments, the orchards, the community building, the Sports Hub, the play
areas, the open space and the sports pitches, to a Management Company, is
necessary to ensure that these facilities are available in the long term to meet
the needs of the future occupants of the development.
425. An obligation to provide public open space and children’s play areas is
necessary to cater for the recreational needs of future residents of the 1,400
dwellings. The children’s play areas would serve a variety of ages and would
include three LEAPs, which would provide an unsupervised area equipped for
children of early school age and within five minutes from their home, and one
larger NEAP. This provision would ensure compliance with DLP saved Policy 76
which requires open land to be provided at a standard of 1.2 ha per 1,000
population or 5% of the development area whichever is greater, and that it
should be useable, well located and purposefully designed. It also requires
‘Major Developments’ to contribute to other recreational needs of the
656 Document CD1.14ii Appendix 2 (Self-Build Housing Statement)
Page 107
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
development such as off-site provision of sports pitches or enhancements to
other open spaces. Saved Policy 76 also requires usable, well located and
purposefully designed play equipment. The provision would include substantially
more open space than the minimum required by this policy.
426. An obligation to secure the provision of a 3G pitch, cricket square, grassed
pitches, MUGA and Sports Hub building containing a sports hall, activity studio,
fitness gym, changing rooms, café/bar is to address deficiencies in outdoor sports
provision in the Tring area identified in the Council’s Dacorum Playing Pitch
Strategy (2019). The Council’s Dacorum Leisure Facilities Strategy (2019)
covers indoor sports facilities and identifies the need to address the issue of
daytime access to sports halls in Tring. Using the Playing Pitch Calculator to
estimate the demand and the associated capital cost generated by the additional
population from a development, the Council has suggested that the facilities
detailed would exceed the minimum policy and Sport England requirements. The
obligation allows for a ‘Sports Hub Extension’ should a new secondary school be
constructed on the site, to cater for the additional demands that would be
generated by the children that would attend the new school.
427. An obligation to secure the provision of a ‘Community Building’ to serve as
both a community hall and a pavilion for the cricket pitch is to meet the
requirements of CS Policy CS23, which relates to the provision of social
infrastructure within the Borough. The explanatory text indicates that this
includes community and leisure facilities. The policy states that new
developments will be expected to contribute towards the provision of community
infrastructure to support the development. The Council has indicated that the
proposed facilities are appropriate for the scale of the development.
428. An obligation to ensure that an area of land would be provided to
accommodate a pre-school nursery within the development for a nursery/crèche
is necessary in response to the additional demand resulting from the
development. I am satisfied that the provision would be appropriate for the scale
of the development and the likely need that would be generated by the residents.
429. An obligation to secure the provision of an area of land of 1.22 ha within the
development for allotments, and the provision of an area of 0.34 ha within the
development as newly planted orchard meets the requirements of the Framework
paragraph 92, which encourages healthy lifestyles that include the provision of
allotments; and paragraph 131, which promotes opportunities to provide
community orchards. These facilities would promote social interaction and
support healthy lifestyles for residents of the development and provide
environmental benefits for the community. Based on the Council’s calculated
requirement of 0.84 ha of allotments, which takes a figure of about 3,360 new
residents and uses the national allotment benchmarks of 0.25 ha per 1,000
residents, the provision would exceed the minimum requirement.
430. An obligation regarding apprenticeships, progression into employment, work
experience and opportunities for students to attend workshops, with a local
labour target of 10% and use of at least 3 local suppliers, is necessary to
promote and provide employment opportunities to local people and to support
the local economy. Whilst there is no specific policy support for this obligation, it
does accord with paragraph 81 of the Framework.
Page 108
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
431. An obligation to ensure that measures would be taken to secure a BNG
increase of at least 30% in habitat units and 10% in hedgerow units with the
payment of a BNG Monitoring Fee is necessary to ensure that the stated
ecological benefits would be realised. Although there are no DP policies requiring
any stated BNG, paragraph 180 (d) of the Framework encourages opportunities
to improve biodiversity in and around developments, especially where this can
secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature.
CS Policies NP1, CS2, CS10, CS26 and CS29 seek to ensure that new
development improves the environment, has regard to environmental assets,
preserves and enhances green gateways and wildlife corridors and minimises
impacts on biodiversity whilst incorporating positive measures to support wildlife.
The BNG is substantially above the 10% requirement indicated in the
Environment Act 2021 but the Appellants have calculated using the appropriate
Metric that the proposal would be likely to achieve at least a 30% BNG.
432. A financial contribution of £396,270 (index linked) towards ‘Canal Towpath
Improvements’ to upgrade the Grand Union Canal towpath between Marshcroft
Lane and Station Road is necessary to promote sustainable travel such as
walking and cycling. It would mitigate impacts that would be likely to accrue
from the development due to an increased use of the towpaths. The sum relates
to costings from the Canal and Rivers Trust657.
433. An obligation has been included to secure a financial contribution of
£1,080,062 (index linked), comprising £73,532 for new or improved pitches and
changing rooms at Tring Sports Centre, £205,166 for new or improved pitches
and changing rooms at Tring RUFC, and £801,364 for further improvements to
swimming facilities at Tring Sports Centre. These sums of money have been
calculated as being necessary to contribute to new and improved facilities at
these venues to cater for the additional demand that would be likely to be
generated by new residents at the proposed development.
434. An obligation to secure the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC SAMM financial
contribution of £913.88 per dwelling (subject to indexation) is necessary because
the appeal site is within the ‘Zone of Influence’ of this wildlife conservation site. I
am satisfied that the sum would be appropriate, as the National Trust has
confirmed that the SAMM measures will cost a total of £18.2 million to be shared
across all the affected local authorities with developers in Dacorum being
required to contribute a calculated proportion for each new home built.
435. Obligations to secure the provision of on-site SANG and the ongoing
maintenance of this SANG are necessary to mitigate the recreational impact of
the development on the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC. The SANG has been
designed in accordance with Natural England’s guidance, which highlights that
8 ha should be provided per 1,000 residents. As such, 26.88 hectares would be
required based on an average occupancy rate of 2.4 for 1,400 dwellings. The
provision of at least 27 ha therefore fairly and reasonably relates in scale to the
development. The appeal proposal also allows for supplementary SANG
consisting of at least 10.56 ha that could potentially be used as mitigation to
allow other new development in the locality.
657 Document ID36 Appendices 2a and 2b
Page 109
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
436. An obligation has been included to secure a ‘Highway Works Scheme’ for off-
site improvements at 3 junctions that have been identified by traffic modelling as
being over capacity with the traffic that is forecast to be generated by the
development; together with new pedestrian crossings and a cycle route along the
A4251 between the London Road/ Cow Lane junction to Newground Road/
Beggars Lane. This is necessary to ensure that there would not be a resulting
unacceptable impact on highway safety, or that the residual cumulative impacts
on the road network would not be severe.
437. The obligations to secure phased contributions towards highways and
transportation include £52,371 (index linked) towards improvements to restricted
byway TT62 for the length of 220m between Marshcroft Farm and Parkhill Farm
in the section 106 Agreement; £10,000 (index linked) towards the provision of
covered cycle parking for 10 bikes at Startop’s End car park; £100,000 (index
linked) towards the provision of the footway and cycleway improvements from
Tring to Northchurch along the A4251; £15,000 (index linked) towards the
provision of improved cycle signage on Bulbourne Road and Tringford Road for a
route to the Grand Union Canal and Tring reservoirs cycle paths; and £35,000
(index linked) towards the provision of town centre cycle parking in Tring town
centre in the UU.
438. The above contributions, together with contributions towards a ‘Bus Service
Strategy’ to enable a 2 bus service between Tring town centre, Tring railway
station and Aldbury and the development over a 10 year period; improvements
to Tring railway station; and travel plans, are necessary to encourage the use of
sustainable means of transport and reduce the reliance on the private car by
future residents of the development. The money would be targeted towards the
infrastructure that would be relatively close to the development and therefore
likely to be used by its occupants.
439. The obligations to secure educational facilities, including the land and a
building for a new on-site two form entry primary school with a nursery, and land
for an on-site secondary school, together with financial contributions, would be
necessary as the existing facilities are insufficient to cater for the additional
demand that would be generated by future occupants of the dwellings. The UU
secures a sum of £314,916 for primary school hardware. It also secures a sum
of £10,486,957 as a ‘Secondary Education Contribution’, calculated pursuant to
the ‘Development Mix’ and ‘Secondary Education Calculation Tables’, to be used
towards the provision of an extension to Tring Secondary School or a new
secondary school or expansion secondary school or sixth form college on the site,
dependant on the requirements of the Education Authority. This allows for
flexibility and there is also flexibility on the level of sports facilities that would be
provided, which would be greater should new secondary educational facilities be
provided on the site. I am satisfied that the provision is necessary and
proportionate to the scale of the development. However, the primary school
allows for an expansion to three form entry and the land to be made available is
greater than the minimum requirements.
440. Based on the above, I am satisfied that all the planning obligations in the
section 106 Agreement and UU meet the tests in CIL Regulation 122 and
paragraph 57 of the Framework, even though some of the provisions exceed the
minimum requirements. In my conclusions and recommendation, I have taken
Page 110
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
into account those planning obligations that secure the necessary provision to
meet the tests.
12 Planning Conditions
441. Should the SofS be minded to grant planning permission, I recommend that
the conditions set out in Appendix C of this report be imposed on the planning
permission. They are based on the conditions suggested by the Appellants,
Council and HCC as the Education Authority and the Local Highway Authority
(LHA). These conditions have been discussed at the Inquiry as described in the
documents submitted658, and I have based my recommended conditions on the
final agreed conditions following these discussions659. The Appellants have
agreed to the pre-commencement conditions that I have suggested. I am
satisfied that they accord with the tests in the PPG.
442. The access is for full planning permission. In this respect, the condition (1)
regarding commencement of the access development has a reduced timescale
from the standard 3 years to ensure that it is carried out expediently. I have
also included the provision of this time scale being increased to one year after
the signing of a section 278 Agreement to allow for any delays outside the
control of the developer, including any High Court challenge to the decision. The
condition (2) referring to the plans submitted is necessary in the interests of
certainty and to ensure that the access is safe, depending on what speed limit is
used for Station Road. It allows for a design to accommodate either a 40mph
speed limit or a 50mph speed limit, dependent upon the LHA’s ultimate decision.
443. The condition (3) to secure a Construction Environmental Management Plan
(CEMP) and Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is necessary to protect the
environment and in the interests of sustainability and safety. The condition (4)
to ensure the protection of retained trees is necessary to protect the ecology and
visual amenity of the area.
444. In terms of the outline permission, conditions regarding reserved matters
approval and the timescales (5, 6, 7), together with a condition referring to
submitted plans (8) are necessary in the interests of expediency and certainty.
The condition (6) regarding the first submission of the reserved matters has a
reduced timescale from the standard time limits to ensure that the development
is commenced expeditiously. However, I have also allowed it to tie in with the
commencement of the access development to allow for any delays outside the
control of the developer, rather than specifically state within 12 months of the
conclusion of any legal challenge to the decision, as requested by the Appellants.
445. A condition (9) requiring details to be submitted for approval at reserved
matters and to be implemented is necessary to ensure the provision of a high
quality development. A condition (10) to secure an access link to an adjacent
site for development, known as New Mill, is in the interests of design quality and
planning. A condition (11) regarding the implementation of an approved Phasing
Strategy is necessary to ensure the provision of supporting infrastructure ahead
658 Documents ID40, ID50 and ID74
659 Document ID81
Page 111
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
of each phase of development in the interests of the free and safe flow of
vehicles on the local highway network during construction.
446. A condition (12) regarding Quality/ Design Review Panels for each phase of the
development is necessary to secure a good quality design. A condition (13)
regarding landscaping is necessary in the interests of ecology and visual amenity.
It includes a provision to override the Design Code with regard to details to be
provided on a strategic structural landscaping plan to ensure that sufficient
structural landscaping can be accommodated within the built development to
protect the character and appearance of the area. A condition (14) requiring an
Energy and Sustainability Strategy is necessary to protect the environment and
ensure that the development is sustainable.
447. A condition (15) to secure the provision of fire hydrants is in the interests of
health and safety. A condition (16) to ensure compliance with an approved
Landscape Concept Plan (LCP) for the village centre is necessary to ensure that
the development provides high quality civic space, good placemaking and a
community heart. A condition (17) to ensure that the development takes
account of the Canal and Waterway infrastructure during construction and
operation is to protect the infrastructure, avoid unacceptable risks from flood risk
and land instability and protect the operation and structural integrity of the
Grand Union Canal.
448. Conditions regarding contamination (18 and 35) are necessary to protect the
environment and for health and safety reasons. A condition to ensure
compliance with a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) and a Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (19) is necessary in the interests of
sustainability and public amenity. A condition (20) requiring compliance with a
Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is necessary to protect air quality
and highway safety. A condition (21) to ensure the implementation of a Traffic
Regulation Order over a section of Marshcroft Lane is necessary for health and
safety reasons.
449. Conditions regarding archaeological investigation (22 and 32) are necessary
for the purposes of historical recording, given the findings of the studies in the
ES. The Surface Water Drainage and Flood Risk conditions (23, 24 and 34) are
necessary to ensure that the new development does not increase the risk of
flooding to the site or to future and existing developments. A condition to control
external lighting (25) is necessary to protect the environment and natural
wildlife, including protected species.
450. A condition (26) requiring the implementation of a Public Realm, Landscape
Management and Maintenance Scheme is necessary for ecological and visual
amenity reasons. A condition (27) to protect visibility splays and a condition (28)
to ensure that the streets are satisfactorily managed and maintained are in the
interests of highway and pedestrian safety. A condition (29) to secure public
transport infrastructure is necessary to promote sustainable transport options.
451. I am satisfied that conditions to require the provision of electric car charging
points (30 and 31) are necessary in the interests of sustainability and climate
change. A condition (33) limiting the use of render is to safeguard the character
and appearance of the area.
Page 112
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
13 Inspector’s Conclusions
The numbers in square brackets [ ] refer back to earlier paragraph numbers which
are relevant to my conclusions.
452. Following the CMC, I submitted a list of what I considered to be the main
considerations in the appeal. These were:
• the five year HLS situation;
• the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes
of including land within the Green Belt;
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding
area and the adjacent AONB;
• the effect of the proposal on the provision of agricultural land in the Borough;
• whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is
clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very
special circumstances necessary to justify the development.
• whether concerns about management arrangements for the proposed SANG,
financial sums for SAMM to mitigate recreational pressure on the Chilterns
Beechwoods SAC, the provision for necessary social infrastructure including
education, health, sports and community facilities, the provision of 45% of
the units to be affordable, the provision of travel plan measures and bus
service improvements, the provision of off-site highway, footpath and cycle
improvements can be overcome by section 106 obligations and/or planning
conditions.
• the impact of offsite flood risk; and
• whether the proposed surface water attenuation and infiltration facilities
would be satisfactory.
453. The above considerations were based on the reasons for refusal. However, the
Council has since indicated in the SoCG that its reasons for refusal Nos 2 to 9
have been resolved, subject to agreeing appropriate section 106 obligations and
planning conditions. These have been agreed at the Inquiry and I have
summarised the reasons in the sections on Planning Obligations and Planning
Conditions. I have taken account of them in reaching my conclusions. In
addition, I have assessed the impact of the proposal on the setting of heritage
assets, as this has been identified as a potential harm; and whether the proposal
would have an unacceptable effect on the integrity of Protected Wildlife Sites to
assist the SofS in making the Appropriate Assessment as the ‘Competent
Authority’ under the Habitats Regulations. I have also examined other matters
raised by objectors.
Housing Land Supply (HLS)
454. For calculations of HLS, both the Council and the Appellants have agreed the
housing requirement at the base date of 1 April 2022 of 1,018 dpa. They have
also agreed that, at the base date, the minimum five year housing requirement
Page 113
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
was 6,458 dpa, which includes a shortfall of 1,060 dwellings and a 5% buffer of
307 dwellings. This equates to an annual requirement of 1,292 dpa. [149, 252]
455. In terms of the supply of housing, the Framework defines a ‘deliverable’ site as
being “…available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be
achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site
within five years.” For those sites with full planning permission, paragraph a)
indicates that to be excluded it is necessary for there to be clear evidence that
the housing would not be delivered in the 5-year period. In paragraph b) of the
definition, it covers, amongst other things, sites with outline planning permission
or that have been allocated in a DP. It states that such sites “…should only be
considered deliverable where there is clear evidence that housing completions
will begin on site within five years.”
456. The Appellants have calculated that the Council can only demonstrate a 1.77
year HLS. Following discussions at the Inquiry, the Council issued a revised five
year HLS of 2.19 years, having conceded that the 200 dwellings allowed for at
the West Herts College site, the 40 dwellings at the Molyneaux Avenue site and
the 25 dwellings at the Hemel Hempstead Station Gateway site would not meet
the Category b) site criteria of being deliverable within the 5 year period. Having
heard the evidence at the Inquiry, I agree that these sites do not meet the
necessary criteria to be considered deliverable in the five year period and I have
therefore not included them in the HLS. [149, 156, 253]
457. Of those sites that remain in dispute, Spencer’s Park, Hemel Hempstead is a
Category a) site, with planning permission. The Council has allowed for 252
dwellings and the Appellants 132 dwellings on this site. The Council’s position is
based on a revised trajectory given by Homes England in an email of 23 January
2023. This indicates that the development of 276 units, which has been granted
reserved matters approval on 13 July 2021, is expected to commence on site two
years earlier than had previously been expected in the HLS. There does not
appear to me to be any substantive evidence to demonstrate that this would not
be achievable, given that the Council’s Strategic SANG at Bunkers Park would be
available if necessary. [150, 151, 256, 257]
458. The other remaining sites in dispute are Category b) sites. Marchmont Farm,
where the difference between the parties is 198 units, has not been granted
planning permission but the Council has resolved to grant an outline application
subject to a section 106 agreement. The Council supports its position by
reference to an email from Homes England which gives an expected trajectory to
tie in with its contractual obligation for enabling works to be put in place by 31
March 2025. However, given that the section 106 obligations include a
requirement for the delivery of on-site SANG, the Council has not shown that
there is a developer on board or that reserved matters are being dealt with, I am
not satisfied that Homes England’s trajectory is sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that housing completions will begin on site within five years. [150,
152, 258]
459. The National Grid site, London Road, where the difference between the parties
is 75 units, is the subject of an application for full planning permission for 425
homes. However, the Council has not provided sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the potential problems with the provision of SANG and
remediation works can be resolved to enable the grant of planning permission.
Page 114
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Therefore, although the Council has supported its inclusion of 75 units in the five
year HLS by a consultant agreeing to its trajectory, there is no clear evidence
that this number of dwellings would be deliverable in the five years. [150, 154,
259]
460. The Miswell Lane site is allocated in the DP for 24 units, but the Council has
included 39 units in its five year HLS. This is based on a detailed planning
application that has been submitted for a 71 bedroom care home which has not
yet been determined. The Council has included the delivery of the whole care
home, which it has suggested equates to 39 residential units in the HLS, based
on one residential unit being equivalent to 1.83 bedrooms, and recent
amendments to the scheme. However, I have not been provided with sufficient
supporting evidence to demonstrate that the application will be approved or that
the site will be developed within the next five years to include it in the five year
HLS. [150, 153, 260]
461. The Appellants have disputed the 100 dwellings that the Council has included
on major windfall sites. In this regard, paragraph 71 of the Framework states
that, where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated
supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable
source of supply and that any allowance should be realistic having regard to the
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, historic windfall delivery rates
and expected future trends. [150, 262]
462. The Council has indicated that it has relied upon the windfall allowance only in
year 5 of the five year HLS assessment period. Taking account of the evidence
provided by the Council, including historic windfall deliveries and its Strategic
SANG, I find that this is a realistic level of windfall, and that by only including it
in year 5, there is some allowance for delays due to issues such as the effect on
the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC. I have therefore included the full amount of the
Council’s windfall allowance of 100 dwellings on major sites and 67 on minor
sites. [150, 155, 262, 263]
463. Concluding on the five year HLS position, for the reasons given above, I find
that the Council has only demonstrated a deliverable supply of 2,516 dwellings.
This is because I am not satisfied that the Council has provided clear evidence
that housing completions on the Category b) sites on land at Marchmont Farm
with 198 dwellings, the National Grid Site, London Road with 75 dwellings and
Miswell Lane with 39 dwellings would contribute towards the five year HLS. On
this basis, the Council is only able to demonstrate 1.95 years of deliverable
housing. The Council has accepted that, even on its own figures, the HLS deficit
is significant and unacceptable. In these circumstances, the policies which are
most important for determining the application are considered to be out-of-date,
in accordance with footnote 8 to paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. [156, 236,
264]
Integrity of Protected Wildlife Sites
464. The site lies within the zone of influence of Chilterns Beechwoods SAC, which
is an internationally recognised designation for sites whose habitats and species
have significant ecological importance. It comprises nine separate sites, of which
Ashridge Commons and Woods SSSI is about 2km to the east of the appeal site;
and Tring Woodlands SSSI lies about 2.3km south-west of the site. Under
Page 115
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as
amended) the SofS is required as the ‘Competent Authority’ to undertake an
‘Appropriate Assessment’ of the proposal on the basis of its likely significant
effects on a ‘Protected Site’. Consequently, my conclusions on this matter
represent my assessment of the evidence presented to me but do not represent
an ‘Appropriate Assessment’. [8]
465. The Council undertook an Appropriate Assessment as the Competent
Authority, and consulted Natural England, when determining the planning
application. At that time, the Council concluded that the proposal would be
contrary to Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2017.
466. The reason given for the Council’s conclusion was that further information was
required to rule out whether, as a result of the development (alone or in
combination), it would not have a likely significant effect in terms of recreational
pressure on Chilterns Beechwoods SAC. The Appellants have demonstrated that
the SANG design has been brought forward in consultation with Natural England,
and its initial concerns have been addressed, with Natural England withdrawing
its objection, having been satisfied that the Land Trust would be a suitable party
to assume responsibility for future SANG management. Hertfordshire Ecology
has been shown to be similarly satisfied. Neither of these parties objected to the
application on ecological grounds other than the effects on the SAC.
467. Since the refusal of the application, the Council has adopted a SAMM strategy
to account for in-combination effects on the SAC, and the Appellants have
committed to paying the requisite tariff, which is secured under a section 106
planning obligation. Both Natural England and Hertfordshire Ecology are satisfied
with this commitment. Taking account of this, I find that the Appellants have
addressed the reasons for the Council finding against the proposal with respect to
the Habitat Regulations. Neither the Council nor the Rule 6 Party have contested
this matter and there is no expert evidence to show that the proposal would have
a significant effect on any of the nearby designated sites. Therefore, in
accordance with paragraph 182 of the Framework, I conclude that the proposal
would not adversely affect the integrity of the designated habitats site and I
consider it to be acceptable under the tests of the Habitats Regulations. [35,
121-124, 132-134, 207-208, 319-320, 356, 406, 434]
Green Belt
468. The appeal site is within the Green Belt. Although the evidence base published
by the Council about the Emerging DLP has examined boundary changes to the
Green Belt to remove the site from it, the grant of planning permission for the
proposed development would not alter the boundary and it would remain in the
Green Belt until such time as the DP process changes it. As such, I have dealt
with the whole proposal as representing inappropriate development in the Green
Belt, which has been accepted by all the parties. In this respect, Section 13 of
the Framework provides the approach to be taken. In taking this approach, I
have attached weight to the harm that I have identified, examined and attached
weight to those considerations in favour of the proposal and carried out a
balancing exercise to establish whether the harm is clearly outweighed by other
considerations.
Page 116
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
469. In terms of footnote 7 of the Framework, it gives examples of specific policies
that indicate development should be restricted, including the Green Belt. In the
case of harm to the Green Belt, if the balancing exercise in paragraph 148 of the
Framework to determine whether or not VSC exist to justify inappropriate
development in the Green Belt is not favourable to the proposal, the presumption
in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 11 of the Framework would
not apply. Conversely, if the balancing exercise is favourable to the proposal, the
presumption would apply, and it would not be necessary to apply the tilted
balance in paragraph 11(d)(ii). [32, 229]
470. The differences between the Council and the Appellants are regarding whether
the other considerations carry sufficient weight to amount to VSC. Even if this is
the case, applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance
with the DP unless material considerations indicate otherwise in accordance with
S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Framework is
only one such material consideration and, even where paragraphs 147 to 151
apply, it remains necessary to conclude against the DP as a whole in accordance
with S38(6).
Openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within the
Green Belt
471. The Framework in paragraph 137 states that the Government attaches great
importance to Green Belts and the fundamental aim is to prevent urban sprawl
by keeping land permanently open. The Appellants have accepted that there
would be harm to the openness of the Green Belt resulting from the proposed
development. As to the degree of this harm, the proposed built development
would occupy about 40% of the 121 ha appeal site with potentially up to 1,400
homes and other buildings that include a community building, a sports hub, a
primary school, a pre-school facility, possibly a secondary school or sixth form
facility and a SANG cafe. In addition, there would be the infrastructure
associated with these buildings, such as roads, lighting and parking, and activity
associated with the development. [24, 60-61, 269, 278, 349, 352]
472. Whilst the Appellants have recognised that the built part of the development
would erode the spatial openness, they seem to me to reduce the harm by
suggesting that the eastern half and some of the central part of the site would be
mainly free from development. This would still leave a significant area of Green
Belt with built development on it that would permanently lose its openness. They
have also suggested that the areas of the site that would be free from
development, together with the vegetation on and around the site, would be
reasons to significantly reduce the effect on visual openness. However, the
appeal site is currently free from any built or other development which would be
regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt, making it spatially completely open.
Also, at my site visit, I observed that there are open views into the site from
PRoWs 057 and 058 on its eastern boundary, some adjoining residential gardens,
and the Ridgeway National Trail in the Chilterns AONB, as well as partial and
glimpsed views into the site from other adjacent public areas. As such, I find
that the site is both spatially and visually open. The proposal would, therefore,
result in significant harm to its openness. [61, 62, 269, 270, 278-281]
473. With regard to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt given in
paragraph 138 of the Framework, both the Appellants and Council acknowledge
Page 117
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
that the proposal would be contrary to purpose c) in that the area of the Green
Belt taken by the appeal site acts to safeguard the countryside from
encroachment. I also find that the site is included in the Green Belt to check the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, as defined in purpose a), which the
Appellants have accepted to a limited degree. Whilst I accept that the appeal
site represents a relatively small part of the Green Belt that has been designated
to prevent unrestricted sprawl, it is very much part of the open countryside
adjacent to Tring and its loss to development would be a significant
encroachment into the countryside. As such, I do not agree with the Appellants
that it would result in moderate harm to the purposes. I find that the proposal
would result in significant harm to the above-mentioned purposes. [63, 274-
278]
474. For the reasons given above, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal
would have a significant adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt and
the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. In accordance with national
policy in the Framework, which is referred to in CS Policy CS5, inappropriate
development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be
approved except in VSC. CS Policy CS5 is the only DP Policy that the remaining
reason for refusal states that the development would contravene, and I have
given it moderate weight due to it referring to the application of national Green
Belt policy. [34-38, 239]
Character and Appearance of the surrounding area and the adjacent AONB
475. The Council has not given a reason for refusal based on the effect of the
proposal on character and appearance or its effect on the adjacent AONB.
However, the Rule 6 Party and other objectors have suggested this should have
been a reason for refusal and all the parties accept that there would be an
adverse effect. [66, 282, 346, 386]
476. I have based my assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the
proposal on what I observed at my site visits, together with the assessments
given by the Council’s expert and the Appellants’ expert, which includes the LVIA.
The Rule 6 Party did not provide any expert analysis but only commented on the
assessments carried out by the Appellants and Council.
477. I accept that the appeal site does not form part of a valued landscape for the
purposes of paragraph 174a of the Framework, as I do not consider that the
views of the CCB are backed by current national policy and guidance, and there
are no protected views covering it or the wider borough. However, I consider
that it forms part of the open countryside adjacent to the settlement of Tring. It
is mainly in an agricultural land use. It is surrounded on three sides by the
Chilterns AONB, which is adjacent to the site boundary. The site forms part of
the AONB’s setting. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to
show that Natural England has considered extending the boundary to include the
site within the AONB, as suggested by the CCB, particularly as Natural England
did not mention this when it withdrew its objection to the proposal. [67-68, 72,
285, 346, 384-385]
478. In terms of the landscape effects, the site is within LCA 114: Tring Gap
Foothills, which I find has a high landscape value, and exhibits most of the key
characteristics of this LCA. There are views from the site to the Chilterns
Page 118
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
escarpment, it is mainly open farmland, and it is bounded by the Grand Union
Canal and a garden centre. It forms part of the setting of Tring but is largely
screened from the adjacent built development within that settlement by relatively
deep, well planted gardens and mature hedgerows and trees adjacent to, and
along, the settlement boundary. It does not contain the West Coast Mainline
Railway, the A41 or the Grand Union Canal, none of which are visible from the
site. As such, I consider that any urban influences on the site are limited. [70-
71, 286-292, 340]
479. The Council’s expert has summarised the respective weight that has been
given to the different landscapes by the Council and Appellants, with reference to
the LVIA, in a Table660. In this respect the LVIA has not assessed the effect on
the Tring Scarp Slopes LCA 111 and Aldbury Scarp Slopes LCA 116, which cover
parts of the escarpments within the AONB. I consider that the proposal would
have an adverse effect on panoramic views from these LCAs, which is one of their
characteristics. However, this would not be significant by year 15 due to the
planting within the site that would have been established at that time. [293]
480. I agree with the Council’s assessment of a moderate adverse residual effect
with regard to the agricultural fields, in that they contribute to the character and
would be permanently lost, regardless of how much landscape planting would be
retained or implemented. The Tring Gap Foothills LCA, of which the appeal site
covers about 10%, would lose its open character over about half of the site, as
well as its use as farmland, and views of the Chilterns escarpment would be lost
from PRoWs 057 and 058. I agree with the Council’s assessment that the
residual significance of effect would be moderate adverse. [73, 75, 94-96, 296,
297, 341]
481. Generally, the Council’s expert and the Appellants’ expert have agreed on the
severity of the effect of the proposal on the landscape in terms of the hedgerows
and canopy trees, most of which would be retained and supplemented by new
planting; the waterbodies, which would be supplemented; NCA 110 Chilterns;
and the overall character of the site and its immediate surroundings, which the
Council has assessed as being minor adverse in year 15. Based on these
assessments and my own observations on site, I accept that the overall residual
effect of the proposal on the landscape would be minor adverse, once the
mitigation has been established in the SANG, hedgerows and along the proposed
and existing streets. [74, 297, 337-338]
482. With regard to the visual effects, all the viewpoints in the AONB that have
been identified by the Appellants and Council have a high sensitivity, and the
zone of theoretical visibility covers some of the most sensitive landscape and
visual receptors in the area. The Council and the Appellants’ assessments of the
visual effects on different receptors has been summarised in a Table661. I have
based my findings on what I observed on site together with these assessments.
Whilst the views of built development would be softened by year 15, once the
mitigation planting has started to establish, I consider that it would still be clearly
visible from three of the receptors. The first would be from Station Road, where
660 Document DBC3a Appendix 2
661 Document DBC3a Appendix 2
Page 119
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the proposed access would be located and new housing would be visible to
provide surveillance for pedestrians using it as a route to the Station. The
second would be from the southern end of PRoW 057, due to the built
development extending further east towards the south of the site. Thirdly, built
development would be visible from parts of the Ridgeway National Trail, and in
particular from Pitstone Hill where the site would be most visible due to the
elevation of this receptor and its relative orientation to the site. [76, 81, 83, 99,
104-106, 294, 298, 299, 307-308, 343-344, 371]
483. At the Inquiry, the Council’s expert witness suggested that one of the main
concerns about the visual and landscape effects of the proposal was regarding
the proposed structural planting within the built development. The Appellants
and Council have now agreed on amendments to the landscaping planning
condition to try to address this concern. Condition 13 overrides parts of the
submitted Design Code to allow additional space to accommodate planting.
Whilst this would assist in mitigating the harm to views from distant viewpoints,
such as from the Ridgeway National Trail and most of PRoWs 057 and 058,
especially where the built development would be separated from these views by
the SANG, playing fields and hedge lines, it would not have a significant effect on
views from locations that are closer to the proposed built development. [66, 85,
295, 300-302]
484. The residual views after the proposed mitigation have matured that would be
most affected would include Station Road, where its rural appearance would be
changed by the views of buildings along most of its length, as well as the
proposed access, which would be more intrusive for the 50mph speed limit
currently required by HCC due to the greater widths involved; as well as from
Marshcroft Lane, which would be crossed by the proposed spine road. There
would also be harm to views over the open countryside that I observed are
currently available from rear gardens that abut the appeal site. However, as
many of these gardens are relatively deep, the loss of the openness would not be
significant, given that mitigation in the form of new planting would be able to be
provided along the boundaries. At my site visit I observed that Bulbourne Road
already has an access from it to the garden centre, as well as more visible built
development than Station Road. Therefore, I consider that the proposed
development adjacent to it, which would be significantly less and set back further
from the road than along Station Road, and the proposed new access would not
result in any significant harm to its appearance. [7, 68, 84, 270, 280-281,
337, 347, 356, 446]
485. Based on the above, I am satisfied that, although the site would be clearly
visible from sensitive locations on the Ridgeway, which would be at a significant
distance, Station Road, Marshcroft Lane and from PRoWs 057 and 058, the
extent of planting that would be accommodated within the SANG and streets,
combined with that which would be retained, would ensure that the residual
visual effect of the proposal would be moderate adverse.
486. Turning to the effect of the proposal on the setting of the Chilterns AONB, any
harm must be given great weight pursuant to paragraph 176 of the Framework.
The Appellants have indicated that the proposal has had regard, where
applicable, to the objectives of the Chilterns AONB Management Plan in terms of
the BNG, improvements to pedestrian and cycle permeability, new areas for
Page 120
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
recreation and increases in vegetation, which would soften and integrate the built
form within the landscape. It has also reflected the CCB Position Statement on
Setting, which does not preclude new development in the setting of the AONB, by
careful design and landscaping to provide mitigation, even though it has failed to
avoid any impact on the setting of the AONB, which is CCB’s first preference.
[90-91, 101, 345, 384-386, 397, 405]
487. I observed that views of the site from the AONB are available from the
elevated scarp to the north-east from Pitstone Hill to Tring Park and Icknield
Way, as well as some channelled views at certain gaps, including Aldbury
Nowers. Although built development within Tring is visible in the distance from
many of the views, the appeal proposal would extend this built development,
much of which would be closer to these sensitive receptors. These receptors
would experience adverse effects and there would also be harm due to a loss of
panoramic views of the AONB from PRoWs 057 and 058 resulting from the tree
planting and buildings. Much of this harm would be mitigated by the SANG, the
retention of existing planting and the proposed structural planting within the built
development, especially in later years when it matures. This would act to break
up the views of the buildings, particularly as they would be seen from a distance
of about 1.5km against the backdrop of the existing built development in Tring.
However, I find that, even with the existing and proposed planting, there would
be residual adverse effects on the setting of the AONB, to which great weight
should be given. [89, 92, 99-103, 303-306, 342, 347, 356, 387-391]
488. For the reasons given above, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal
would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area and the setting of the AONB. It would fail to accord with CS
Policy CS1, as the proposal would result in harm to the existing character of
Tring’s adjoining countryside; and CS Policy CS25, as it would fail to conserve or
improve the prevailing landscape quality, character and condition. I have given
these policies moderate weight due to their broad consistency with Framework
policies. It would also fail to accord with saved DLP Policy 97, to which I have
given moderate weight; and CS Policy CS24, which I have given full weight, as
the proposal would fail to conserve the special qualities of the Chilterns AONB.
[107, 238, 243-244]
Agricultural Land
489. The Appellants have stated that the proposal would use 116.7 ha of
agricultural land of which about 59 ha (49%) is BMV land. The ES’s findings
regarding the impact of the loss of agricultural land, which was informed by
surveys carried out in 2013 and 2017, is that the residual effect of the proposed
development on agricultural land remains major adverse, which is significant.
This takes account the proposed mitigation. The Appellants’ expert has not
assessed the weight to be given to this loss but has indicated that the agricultural
land quality is mostly limited by soil wetness and/or workability and the farmer
has described the Station Road land to the south and the Grove Farm land to the
north as some of the poorest performing land farmed within the overall holding.
[118-120, 314]
490. The Council has not given any expert evidence to counter that given by the
Appellants’ expert at the Inquiry. The Framework indicates in paragraph 174 b)
that planning decisions should recognise, amongst other things, the economic
Page 121
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
and other benefits of the BMV agricultural land. In this respect, the Council has
indicated in the Committee Report that the loss of the site to agricultural use
would not warrant a reason for refusal. However, given the extent of agricultural
land that would be lost, including a relatively high percentage of BMV agricultural
land, and the findings of the ES, I consider that this harm carries significant
weight. The proposal would also fail to accord with DLP Policy 108, as the
Appellants have not demonstrated that there is no alternative land of lower
quality which could reasonably be used, albeit that limited weight can be given to
this Policy due to it not being up-to-date and its inconsistencies with the
Framework. [245, 314, 352, 356, 358, 407]
Heritage
491. The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990, sections 16
and 66 require LPAs to have special regard to the desirability of preserving
historic buildings and their settings. Paragraph 199 of the Framework indicates
that, irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm,
total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance, great weight should be
given to the asset’s conservation, when considering the impact of a proposed
development on the significance of a designated heritage asset.
492. There are no nationally designated buildings or CAs within the site boundary.
The designated heritage assets that would be most affected by the proposal are
the buildings associated with Pendley Manor: the Lodge and the Stables, both of
which are Grade II, fronting Station Road. A section of the appeal site forms a
part of these assets’ setting. I accept the Appellants’ expert’s findings on these
assets that the southern margin of the site provides a lower, secondary level of
contribution to the asset’s significance as a largely screened, small element of
the asset’s rural context. I agree with the Council and Appellants that the
proposal would not have any significant effect on the recently extended Ashridge
Park, as it would be too far away to affect the views. [136-137, 139, 410]
493. Three non-designated heritage assets have been identified as being affected in
that parts of the site are within their settings. These are Ivy Cottage on Station
Road, to which the south-western corner of the site provides a secondary level of
contribution to its significance; the Grand Union Canal, to which the site makes a
minor positive contribution to its local, low significance; and Pendley Park and
Gardens, to which the southern fields of the site provide only a negligible level of
contribution to its significance. The Built Heritage Statement and ES have
assessed the level of harm to the significance of these heritage assets. I agree
with the Appellants’ assessment that the development would cause minimal harm
to the contribution setting makes to the high significance of the two identified
designated heritage assets and the lower significance of the three non-designated
heritage assets. This would amount to less than substantial harm to the
contribution setting makes to the significance of these heritage assets. [136-
137]
494. I am satisfied that the less than substantial harm to these heritage assets
would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal, in accordance with
paragraph 202 of the Framework. The proposal would accord with CS Policy
CS27 as it would protect the integrity, setting and distinctiveness of designated
and undesignated heritage assets. However, the less than substantial harm that
I have found that the proposal would cause to the significance of the two
Page 122
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
designated heritage assets must be given great weight in accordance with the
Framework. [135, 138-139, 315, 352]
Highways
495. The Council has accepted that its reasons for refusal 6 and 7 regarding
highways issues have been addressed. In terms of the outstanding matter of the
speed limit on Station Road, which would affect the design of the proposed
access, the Appellants have promoted a 40mph design speed but HCC as the LHA
has only supported lowering the speed limit to 50mph. At the Inquiry, HCC
agreed to re-assess the speed limit but at the present time the appropriate
design speed would be 50mph, as the Appellants do not have any powers to
lower it below that which would be imposed by the LHA. The speed limit would
operate on a relatively short length of Station Road between two areas with
30mph speed limits, and I consider that the proposed signalised junction
arrangement would be likely to reduce the average speed to below 40mph.
Based on this, together with the evidence provided to the Inquiry, it seems to me
that HCC may well conclude that a 40mph speed limit would be more appropriate
than 50mph, and would be capable of being ‘self-enforcing’, when it re-assesses
the speed limit. [108-111, 309-310, 393]
496. The Appellants have demonstrated by a comprehensive assessment of the
highway impact to the satisfaction of the LHA that, with agreed improvements to
the highway, the residual impact on the road network would not be severe, as
required by paragraph 111 of the Framework. I am satisfied that the TA has
adequately assessed the highway impact of the proposed development and that
the measures agreed with the LHA would be sufficient mitigation, in combination
with improvements to the bus services and cycling and walking facilities, to
reduce the reliance on the car. The methodology used to assess the existing and
future traffic flows, including the TRICS data, and not basing the assessment of
junction performance on the COMET modelling, have been agreed with the LHA.
I have been provided with insufficient substantive evidence to show that
methodologies used by the Appellants to assess junction performance and trip
generation are not appropriate, given that they have been agreed with the LHA.
The assessments have shown that, with the proposed works, the impact on
major junctions would not be significant. [110-115, 374-380, 411]
497. The Council and HCC have welcomed the proposed bus service between Tring
town centre and Aldbury, via the proposed development and Tring Station.
Although it would result in a longer route and journey times than the existing
route between Tring town centre and the Station, it would be more frequent and
the proposed funding and likely increase in numbers of residents that it would
serve should make it a benefit in encouraging greater use of public transport.
Whilst there would potentially be an increase in the need to use car parks in the
town centre, Tesco’s and at the railway station, the proposal would seek to
reduce the need to use the car by the measures that it would implement in
promoting the use of more sustainable means of transport. [116-117, 311,
358, 360, 375, 393, 401]
498. Having taken account of the evidence provided at the Inquiry and the written
submissions from objectors, I conclude on this issue that the proposal would not
have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and its residual cumulative
highway impacts on the road network would not be severe. It would therefore
Page 123
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
accord with paragraph 111 of the Framework. I am satisfied that, with the
measures that would be secured by planning conditions and obligations, it would
also make adequate provision for alternative non-car methods of travel, would
enhance PRoWs and mitigate significant impacts from the development on the
transport network. In this respect it would accord with CS Policy CS8 and DLP
Policy 106.
Flooding and Drainage
499. The Council has accepted that its reasons for refusal 8 and 9 on flooding and
drainage matters have been addressed by the Appellants supplying additional
information following the application. This has included additional soakaway
testing and hydraulic modelling, as well as direct rainfall modelling and additional
sensitivity testing. The results show that there would be sufficient storage within
the SANG to manage forecast extreme flows to prevent any impact on existing
and proposed properties. Although local residents have provided details of
‘flooding’ in the area, I consider that it does not represent a flood risk. The
evidence indicates that it is related to poor surface water drainage in clay soils.
The proposed SuDS, which would include infiltration basins, should improve the
drainage of the land and address the existing flooding due to poor surface water
drainage. Given that the site is within Flood Zone 1, which is an area of low risk,
and that the Environment Agency has not objected, and the Council has
withdrawn its reasons for refusal on this issue, I find that the proposal would not
have an adverse effect on the risk from flooding or drainage and would accord
with CS Policy CS31. [140-146, 356, 357, 369, 370, 414]
Other Considerations
500. The Council has provided a Table662 that indicates the weight that it and the
Appellants have attached to the other considerations put forward by the
Appellants to demonstrate VSC. I have used my own judgment in deciding the
weight to attach to each of the considerations in reaching my decision as to
whether they amount to the VSC necessary to justify the development in the
Green Belt. I have based my judgment on the evidence provided, with the
Appellants providing expert evidence at the Inquiry to support the claimed
benefits, much of which was unopposed by the Council. [147]
501. The section 106 obligations in the Agreement and UU secure benefits in terms
of open space, allotments, orchards, BNG, land for potential use as
supplementary SANG, and additional space for schools above those provisions
that would be required to meet the CIL Regulation 122 tests. The areas of land
to be used for these purposes are identified on the Parameter plans, which are
included in a planning condition. Therefore, these areas of land would be
protected for the stated purposes. As such, I am satisfied that some of those
benefits associated with the provision of this land can be taken into account as
other considerations. [425, 429, 431, 435, 439]
662 Document ID60 Table 4
Page 124
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Market Housing
502. The Government has committed itself to delivering 300,000 new homes a year
and national policy reflected in the Framework paragraph 60 is to significantly
boost the supply of homes. I have found that the Council has only been able to
demonstrate about a 2 year HLS which is only a bit less than the 2.19 years HLS
that it has accepted as being deliverable within the next five years. This
indicates that there is an acute shortage of new homes in the Borough, which the
Council has accepted. Out of the maximum of 1,400 dwellings proposed, up to
560 would be market housing that would have a mix that would be agreed with
the Council to meet the identified housing need. I acknowledge that past
Government Written Ministerial Statements have suggested that housing need
should not be used as a reason for allowing new development in the Green Belt.
However, addressing this need is not the only benefit of the proposal that has
been suggested by the Appellants. Although the Council has questioned whether
the proposal would be capable of contributing to the five year supply of housing,
the Appellants, who include a national house builder, have demonstrated that
there would be a reasonable prospect that a significant number of new homes
would be delivered on the site within five years of the grant of planning
permission. [17, 24.1, 148, 149, 158, 219-220, 261, 264]
503. Both the Council and Appellants have attached very substantial weight to this
benefit. I find that the proposal would result in a significant boost to new
housing in the Borough which I am satisfied would be capable of contributing to
the five year HLS that the Council has been unable to demonstrate that it can
meet. As such, I have attached substantial weight to the provision of up to 560
new market homes. [148, 268]
Affordable Housing
504. The proposal would provide 45% of the maximum of 1,400 dwellings on the
site as affordable housing, which would be split between 25% social rented, 25%
First Homes, 40% affordable rented and 10% intermediate affordable homes. It
would provide a greater percentage of affordable homes than required by CS
Policies CS18 and CS19, to which I have attached moderate weight even though
they are partly inconsistent with the Framework. [24.1, 39, 240, 420]
505. The Appellants have referred to an extensive evidence base to demonstrate
the acute need for affordable homes in the Country as a whole and in the
Borough in particular, which has not been met. Although the Rule 6 Party has
questioned the deliverability of the proposed affordable homes, based on there
being no accompanying viability assessment, there is no requirement to provide
such an assessment where there is a section 106 agreement in place to secure
the required number. With this agreement in place, I am satisfied that the
proposal would deliver the proposed number of affordable homes and that these
would help to address the identified significant deficiency in affordable homes in
the Borough and in Tring. Both the Appellants and Council have afforded this
benefit very substantial weight. I accord it substantial weight, which is the
highest weight that I have used in my assessment of the planning balance. [46,
51, 160-164, 220, 251, 265, 316, 334-335]
Page 125
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Self and Custom Build Housing
506. The Council has acknowledged that very substantial weight should be given to
the provision of 5% self and custom build plots, which is the same weight given
by the Appellants. I have based the weight that I attach to this provision on the
demand identified using the Council’s 2020 DAF, even though the Appellants
have identified that this may be an under-estimate of the actual need. I have
also taken account of the importance that the Government has placed on this
sector of the housing market, as demonstrated by the documents referred to by
the Appellants. The proposed provision is necessary to ensure compliance with
section 2A of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 and paragraph
62 of the Framework. To meet this demand, the Appellants have agreed to a
planning condition to make the proposed 70 plots available in the early phases of
the development. Accordingly, I have given the proposed provision of self and
custom build plots substantial weight. [166-175, 266, 422]
Extra Care Housing
507. The Appellants have committed to provide 140 Extra Care C2 units. The
importance of this provision is recognised by the Council in that it has given it
very substantial weight. The need for this housing is critical, as indicated in the
PPG, and the proposal would provide housing that would allow residents to live
independently with the benefit of care and support services available on site.
This should result in wider benefits that include those associated with better
health and well-being and freeing up market housing. The Council’s figures show
a significant shortfall in the Borough’s supply of Extra Care housing, and this has
not been addressed in projected future development. On this basis, I have given
the provision of the proposed 140 Extra Care units substantial weight. [176-
179, 266-267, 421]
Socio-Economic Benefits
508. The Council and the Appellants have given the socio-economic benefits of the
appeal proposal significant weight. The extensive scale of the proposed
development would generate significant employment benefits, both during its
construction which would be over at least a 10 year period, and after it has been
completed, such as in the new school and the community centre. The future
residents would be able to contribute to the local labour force required by
businesses, given the relatively high cost of housing in Tring and the
demographics of the population of the town, as well as making a significant
contribution to the local economy by their expenditure. This would help to
maintain the viability and vitality of businesses in Tring. In determining the
weight to attach to these benefits, I have been careful not to double count those
benefits such as from the new housing that I have allowed for under different
considerations. On this basis, I have nevertheless attached substantial weight to
the socio-economic benefits of the proposal. [24.14-24.16, 180-189, 221(f)]
Schools and Educational Facilities
509. The proposal would make provision for community and educational facilities,
including a sports hub that would be made available for the use of the proposed
school. Whilst the new primary school would be necessary to meet the planning
needs generated by the proposed future residents, it would have additional
Page 126
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
capacity that could enable other new development to come forward in Tring. The
secondary school provision would only be required should the existing secondary
school in Tring be unable to cater for the increased demand that would be
generated by the development. Whilst the Appellants would be securing land for
these facilities as well as a large sum of money invested in their provision, they
would be necessary to mitigate the demand on educational facilities in the area
from future residents of the proposed development. I have attached low
moderate weight to the provision of schools and educational facilities, as land
would be secured for these purposes. [24.2-24.4, 190-193, 322, 375, 394,
399, 412, 439]
Recreational and Sporting Benefits
510. The proposed provision of orchards and allotments would be a recreational
benefit to the residents of Tring, which has been acknowledged by the Council,
even though there does not appear to me to be any deficit of these in the area.
As the proposed public open space on the site would be within walking distance
of a limited number of existing residents on the eastern side of Tring, its main
benefit would be to those residents in the proposed dwellings, given that there
are other attractive areas of open space within easy access of local residents.
The new sports facilities and sports hub would be delivered for use by the
secondary school, but the level of facilities would be reduced should the site not
be used for the school. Contributions to existing recreational facilities would also
be made. In addition, there would be improved access to the countryside and
pedestrian routes within the SANG. I have given these recreational and sporting
facilities moderate weight as they would provide a wider benefit to local residents
beyond those residing within the new development. [24.4, 24.6, 24.27, 24.28,
24.31, 24.32, 194-196, 323, 326]
Community Facilities
511. The proposed community facilities would consist of a serviced site to
accommodate a new doctor’s surgery and financial contributions towards
healthcare infrastructure to include buildings for a new medical centre, a private
day nursery and a multi-function community hall. These facilities would be
secured by section 106 obligations, and I have found that they would meet the
required CIL Regulation tests. However, they would be available to more than
the future residents of the proposed development. I have also considered the
reliance upon the NHS and private organisations to run the facilities. Taking
everything into consideration, I have given them low moderate weight as they
would provide benefits to the wider community. [24.17, 197, 354, 423, 427-
428]
Sustainable Transport Benefits
512. I agree with the Council and Appellants that the appeal site is in a sustainable
location. It is sited between Tring railway station, which is on the mainline to
London, and the settlement boundary of Tring, which is one of the largest
settlements in the Borough and provides a wide range of facilities and
employment opportunities. The proposal would improve the level of surveillance
and security along the route between the town and railway station from new
residential development that would overlook Station Road and improved
cycleways and footpaths, linking them and the development. [19, 81-84]
Page 127
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
513. The proposal would contribute towards forecourt improvements at Tring
railway station, including cycle parking, and would include travel plans and
contributions towards footpath improvements. Whilst many of the proposed
improvements would be necessary to overcome planning objections associated
with sustainability and the impact of traffic that would be generated by the
development, there would be benefits to the wider community from an increase
in frequency of bus services between the town centre and station and
improvements to pedestrian and cycling facilities, including the removal of
vehicles from part of Marshcroft Lane. I have considered all the transport
improvements that would be delivered through section 106 planning obligations
and section 278 for off-site works. Taking account of the above factors, I have
given moderate weight to the proposal’s sustainable transport benefits. [24.18-
24.23, 84, 108, 111, 198-202, 311-312, 324]
Ecology
514. The Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment indicates that the appeal scheme is
projected to achieve an increase of 36.55% in habitat units and 1.03% in
hedgerow units under Version 3.01 of the Biodiversity Metric, which I accept is
the appropriate metric to use in this case. This allows for a discount due to the
SANG designation, the method for which was agreed by Natural England.
Although an objector has criticised the method used to arrive at this BNG figure,
and in particular the use of a Mini-Metric, I am satisfied that the Appellants have
provided sufficient evidence to justify their approach. A section 106 planning
obligation would ensure that the proposal would secure the BNG, including a 10%
uplift in hedgerow units. The BNG is considerably more than the requirement
under planning policy and legislation, which has not yet been enacted. [24.10-
24.13, 58, 78, 203-208, 221, 373]
515. The proposal would provide bird and bat boxes and ‘Hedgehog Gateways’,
none of which are recognised by the Metric, in addition to enhancement and
management of habitats, including the SANG, additional semi-natural open space
and the green infrastructure. This would deliver significant ecological benefits for
people and wildlife. I am satisfied that the Appellants have provided sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that they have fully considered and taken account of
habitats and species, including bats, in the assessments of the BNG
improvements to the ecology. It is not surprising to me that the replacement of
large areas of intensively farmed arable land with natural woodland, and the
retention of most of the existing hedgerows and trees, as well as additional
planting over the site, would result in a significant BNG. There would also be
additional land protected from built development shown on the Parameter plans
that would be available for supplementary SANG to enable development on other
sites in Tring. Whilst the SANG provision and the other measures would be
secured as necessary mitigation, they would also provide ecological enhancement
of the site, to which I have given moderate weight as a benefit of the proposal.
[126-133, 203-208, 319-321]
Design
516. Design and layout are matters of detail that have been reserved for later
consideration. The planning conditions seek to control these matters with
Page 128
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
reference to a Design Code and Parameter Plans663. However, much of this
design is necessary to mitigate the impact of the built development on the
character and appearance of the surrounding area. Whilst I accept that the
proposal would ensure that a sensitive design would be provided to minimise this
harm, I have taken account of this in my consideration of the effects on the
character and appearance of the surrounding area and in the weight that I have
given to other considerations. Therefore, I have not attached any weight to
design matters in my consideration of VSC. [24.24, 79, 209-214]
Sustainability
517. The Appellants are committed to providing sustainable energy measures that
include wide use of Air Source Heat Pumps, on-site sustainable energy
production, and a reduction of 90% allowable emissions against 2021 Building
Regulation Part L. They claim that this will deliver zero-carbon ready homes from
2025, and be carbon zero ready by 2030, by allowing the extent of the measures
to be confirmed in detail and quantified at each reserved matters application to
comply with the appropriate standards at that time. These measures would be
secured by a planning condition. However, as the proposal would deliver housing
over a significant period, higher standards of energy sustainability would be
expected of most new developments at the time of construction of many of the
proposed homes. As such, I have given this low moderate weight as a benefit of
the proposal. [24.29-24.30, 215-217, 327]
Development Plan
518. The Government is committed to a plan led system to control the type and
location of future development, as reflected in paragraph 15 of the Framework.
However, the Council has accepted that it does not have an up-to-date DP and
the Appellants have demonstrated that the Council has a history of failing to
meet its commitments to deliver one. The CS, which is the latest part of the DP
to be adopted, does not have a Framework compliant figure of OAN for housing
and has never addressed the housing needs in accordance with the Framework.
This has resulted in the Council’s failure to adequately plan for the Borough’s
future housing needs identified by the Local Plan Inspector in June 2012 and
confirmed by the High Court to be required to be reviewed in 2017/18, which has
never been done. [22, 25, 27-30, 48, 221, 332, 354, 398]
519. Although the proposal would result in an encroachment into the countryside
and Green Belt by increasing the extent of the built-up area of Tring, the site has
been included as an allocation in the Emerging DLP, albeit that this document has
only reached Regulation 18 stage and has since been withdrawn. Prior to the
withdrawal of this emerging plan, the site’s inclusion as an allocation indicates
that the Council must have considered that the exceptional circumstances
necessary to justify its removal from the Green Belt had been met. I have not
been provided with details of any alternative draft plan to demonstrate that this
allocation would be likely to be taken out and there is nothing before the Inquiry
to show how the Council is progressing the next stage of the local plan process to
meet its 2025 deadline. The evidence has demonstrated that the appeal site has
been considered as a potential future allocation for the past 10 years and a
663 Conditions 8 and 13
Page 129
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
significant amount of work has been carried out to ensure that an acceptable
development would be able to be provided on the site. [11, 20, 23, 26, 33, 42,
47, 49, 50, 54-56, 225, 248-249, 317, 328, 403]
520. The Council has not contested the Appellants claim that there would be a need
to release sites within the Green Belt to meet the future housing needs of the
Borough, given that it contains about 60% Green Belt outside the urban areas.
As part of the DP process that informed the decision to allocate the appeal site in
the Emerging DLP, the Council carried out a thorough examination of the Green
Belt to identify potential sites to accommodate the required level of development,
and to avoid the AONB that covers large parts of the Borough. The Emerging
DLP identified the appeal site for allocation as site Tr03 with the same number of
houses and a similar level of other development as proposed. This document
remains the most up-to date assessment that has been made available to the
Inquiry of how the Council would be able to meet its future housing needs. [21,
30, 31, 41, 44-46, 247, 249]
521. Documents that the Council has used to inform its Emerging DLP include the
Stage 2 Green Belt Review and Landscape Appraisal undertaken by ARUP in
2016. It assessed the appeal site as two sub-areas, TR-A2 and TR-A3, which it
identified as strongly contributing to the Green Belt purposes. It advised that
TR-A3, which is the southern part of the appeal site, should be excluded from
further consideration for release, and concluded that neither of the sites should
be taken forward. However, the appeal site has since been re-examined as a
potential allocation. The AECOM Site Assessment Study for the Council, 2020,
has identified the area of the appeal site, referred to as ‘Land East of Tring’, as
potentially suitable for allocation with major constraints, which include the Green
Belt and AONB setting. The Study shows that the urban capacity for the Borough
is significantly lower than the potential capacity and the Table showing the
potential of all sites includes sites with constraints due to Green Belt and AONB,
with 7,370 dwellings identified as not being able to be accommodated within the
existing urban area. [53, 159, 250, 271-274, 333]
522. Based on the above, I consider that the Council’s repeated failure to progress
an up-to-date DP that would update its future housing need and ensure the
provision of sufficient sites to address this need is an important factor in my
determination of this appeal. This, combined with the latest findings of
documents used to inform the Emerging DLP on allocations, which have identified
the release of the appeal site from the Green Belt as a potential option to address
the future housing needs even though it is subjected to significant constraints,
weigh heavily in favour of the appeal proposal. Whilst the test for exceptional
circumstances needed to justify the removal of the site from the Green Belt is
less stringent than the VSC needed to justify the development in this case, this
matter carries significant weight with regard to my findings on whether VSC
exist.
Other Matters
523. The Appellants have referred to, and provided copies of, many previous appeal
decisions and reports in support of the appeal proposal. However, they involve
significantly different circumstances than the current appeal, particularly with
regard to the scale of the proposed development and the relative location. Whilst
I have noted the points made, they are not directly comparable to the appeal,
Page 130
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
and I have reached my conclusions on this appeal based on its own individual
planning merits in the light of prevailing policies and guidance. [50, 150, 163,
166, 170, 174, 218, 230, 255, 355]
524. I have considered the significant number of objections to the application and
appeal, together with the petition against it, which convey many concerns about
the proposal. However, the Appellants have indicated that beneficiaries are not
always given sufficient recognition in the planning system, and I have taken
everything into account in the planning balance. Whilst many objectors have
suggested that there is not a pressing need for new housing in the Borough and
Tring, due to the recently permitted new development, this is not supported by
the HLS figures and the Council accepts that there is an acute need for more
housing. Furthermore, the Council acknowledges that there is a need for more
affordable housing in the Borough, which is indicated in the letters in support of
the proposal. [163, 381, 396, 417]
525. The argument that allowing this appeal would make it more difficult for LPAs to
resist other new development in the Green Belt does not take account of the
individual circumstances of this appeal proposal. The combination of the level of
housing shortage that has been accepted by the Council, and in particular
affordable housing, the relative location of the site and the documents that have
considered the release of the site from the Green Belt are very unlikely to be
replicated in other appeals or applications for new development in the Green Belt.
Therefore, I am satisfied that by allowing this appeal, it would not make it any
more difficult for LPAs to prevent future unacceptable inappropriate development
in the Green Belt. [219, 222, 350, 362]
526. Concerns have been expressed by Aldbury Parish Council, a local Councillor
and local residents regarding the impact of the proposal on Aldbury and residents
at the hamlet, known as Tring Station. Whilst the proposal would not provide a
cycleway/walkway to Aldbury, it would make arrangements to provide a more
frequent bus service to Aldbury from Tring town centre, via the development and
Tring Station, which should encourage the use of sustainable transport between
these places. Furthermore, it would improve the cycleway and footway along
Station Road, including the surveillance, which would make it more attractive to
use these sustainable means of transport to access Tring railway station, even
though there are constraints that do not seem to me to have been overcome at
the narrow bridge and occasional flooding of the road that I observed at one of
my site visits. [393, 395, 400, 408, 438]
527. Reference has been made by objectors to the proposed changes to national
policy in the Framework. Whilst these objections have relied upon suggestions
that the housing need figures would be used as a guide rather than be
mandatory, there is nothing before me to show that this would be the case, given
that the Government has recently confirmed its commitment to providing
significant numbers of new dwellings. Furthermore, I have no timetable of when
any amendments to the Framework would be introduced. Based on the
significant number of responses that has been received on the consultation
document, the final amended Framework document could be a long way from
being introduced. [56, 396]
528. I am satisfied that the concerns about the effect of the proposal on services
and local infrastructure would be addressed by the provisions that would be
Page 131
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
secured under planning obligations in the section 106 Agreement and UU. These
have been agreed with the Council and extensively discussed at the Inquiry, in
order to take on board comments from HCC. As a result, the Council has
withdrawn its reasons for refusal on these matters. With regard to the services
required for the proposed development, there have been no objections from the
providers, including Thames Water, and the Council has not raised any concerns.
There is a statutory obligation for the undertaker to cater for the expected
increase in demand for the supply of water and disposal of sewage, and I have
nothing before me to show that the electricity and internet supply to the
development would not be provided ecologically. [322, 356, 399, 401, 412-
414, 423]
529. The concerns expressed by L&Q Estates regarding the access to the
development site at New Mill have been addressed by planning condition 10,
which secures provisions to accommodate future development of this site. This is
another benefit of the appeal proposal, by helping to release significantly more
land that has been identified for new housing. [416, 445]
Very Special Circumstances and Planning Balance
530. Taking account of the above, I have assessed the harm to the Green Belt.
This harm would be through the loss of openness, which would be significant due
to the large scale of the development, and the significant harm that the proposal
would cause to the Green Belt’s purposes of checking the sprawl of built-up areas
and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, due to the relatively large
area of the Green Belt that would be taken. The harm to the Green Belt, which
includes harm due to inappropriateness, carries substantial weight, in accordance
with paragraph 148 of the Framework. The other harm that I have found is to
the character and appearance of the surrounding area, to which I attach
moderate weight due to the sensitive design of the development and proposed
mitigation; and the setting of the Chilterns AONB, which carries great weight; the
significance of heritage assets, which also carries great weight in accordance with
the Framework; and the significant weight that I have given to the loss of BMV
agricultural land. [314, 315]
531. The other considerations that I have taken into account in my determination of
whether they amount to VSC include the substantial weight that I have given to
the market housing, affordable housing, self and custom build housing, Extra
Care housing and socio-economic benefits. I have also given moderate weight to
the ecological and sustainable transport benefits and low moderate weight to the
additional land for schools and educational facilities, recreational and sporting
facilities, community facilities and sustainable energy measures, which takes
account of reductions in weight due to measures being necessary mitigation.
Another important factor that I consider weighs in favour of granting planning
permission is the evidence that has been provided to show that the proposed
development would reflect that which has been considered as an allocation on
the appeal site in the Emerging DLP, to which the weight is increased because of
the delays in progressing the local plan, given that the existing DP is out-of-date.
532. Based on the above, I find that the other considerations in this case clearly
outweigh the harm that I have identified. I am satisfied that this would still be
the case, even if no weight were given to the additional benefits that would arise
from measures that I consider to be necessary mitigation. Therefore, looking at
Page 132
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
the case as a whole, I consider that VSC exist which justify the development.
There are no other matters before me to alter my conclusions that the conflict
that I have found to the DP are outweighed by these other material
considerations. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should
succeed. [36]
14 Recommendation
533. I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning permission granted
subject to the conditions set out in Appendix C. If the SofS is minded to agree, I
also recommend that the section 106 Agreement and UU take effect as indicated
at paragraph 440 of this report.
M J Whitehead
INSPECTOR
Page 133
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
APPENDIX A: APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Dacorum Borough Council
Simon Bird KC Counsel for Dacorum Borough Council, instructed
and by Nargis Sultan, Dacorum Borough Council
Esther Drabkin-Reiter Legal Services
They called
Ronan Leydon BA(Hons) Team Leader, Strategic Planning
MPlan Team, Dacorum Borough Council
James Dale MSc DipCivEng Area Development Manager, Environment and
Infrastructure Directorate, Hertfordshire County
Council
Tanya Kirk BSc(Hons) Director, Hankinson Duckett Associates
PGDip CMLI
Martin Stickley BA(Hons), Principal Planning Officer, Dacorum Borough
MSc Council
Dan Harding BEng(Hons) Senior Planning Officer, School Planning,
Children’s Services, Hertfordshire County Council
At the Round Table sessions on section 106 planning obligations:
Joan Reid Team Leader, Dacorum Borough Council
Victoria Searle Solicitor, Dacorum Borough Council
Benedict King Solicitor, Hertfordshire County Council
Jamie Alderson Planner, Hertfordshire County Council
MRTPI
FOR THE APPELLANTS: Redrow Homes Ltd & James, John and Jacqueline Westrope
Christopher Young KC Counsel for the Appellants, instructed by
and Reverend Professor Bob May, Ryan & May
James Corbet Burcher
They called
Samantha Ryan BA(Hons) Director, Ryan & May
MRTPI
James Stacey BA(Hons) Managing Director, Tetlow King Planning
DipTP MRTPI
Annie Gingell BSc(Hons) Associate, Tetlow King Planning
MSc MRTPI
James Donagh BA(Hons) Director, Stantec
MCD MIED
Kerrie Norman BEng(Hons) Director, Flinders Chase
LLM
Rob Coles BA(Hons) Master Planner/Urban Designer, David Lock
DipArch RIBA Associates
Antony Pollard BA(Hons) Head of Economics, Turley
MTPL MRTPI
Peter Hadfield BSc(Hons) Senior Director, Ecology Solutions
MSc MCIEEM
Jonathan Smith BA(Hons) Senior Director, Heritage, RPS Consulting UK
MA DipHC MCIA MIHBC
Page 134
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Alastair Field BA(Hons) Director and the Company Secretary, Reading
MSc FBIAC PIEMA Agricultural Consultants
MISoilSci
Matthew Chard BA (Hons) Director, Landscape Planning, Stantec
Dip (Hons) MAUD CMLI
Scott Witchalls MSc CMILT Director, Stantec
MCIHT MTPS
Rebecca Lydon BSC(Hons) Associate Director of Smart Energy and
MRes AMEI PIEMA Sustainability, Hydrock
Stuart Nelmes BSc (Hons) Regional Director, BWB Consulting Limited
MRes MCIWEM C.WEM
CEnv
Reverend Professor Bob Director, Ryan & May
May BA (Hons) BPI Dip Mgt
AoU FRTPI
At the Round Table sessions on section 106 planning obligations:
Jane Lancaster Solicitor, Redrow Homes Ltd
Nicole Cameron Solicitor, Cripps
FOR THE RULE 6 PARTY: Combined Objectors’ Group (The Chiltern Society, Grove
Fields Residents Association and CPRE Hertfordshire)
Joseph Thomas Counsel for Combined Objectors’ Group,
instructed by Chris Berry, CPRE Hertfordshire
He called
Nicola Brown BA(Hons) Managing Director, Huskisson Brown Associates
BLandArch CertUD CMLI
Chris Berry BA(Hons) Planning Manager, CPRE Hertfordshire
DipTP MRTPI
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Sue Yeomans Local resident and Member of the Chiltern
Countryside Group
Steve Ballantyne Local resident
Philip Moore Local resident
Tim Amsden Local resident
Elizabeth Hamilton Local resident
Peter Davidson BSc MSc CEng Local resident and Managing Director of Peter
MICE Euring CITP MBCS CMRS Davidson Consultancy Ltd and Peter Davidson
Software Ltd
Jennifer O’Brien Local resident
Rachel Moore Local resident
Dr Matt Thomson BA DipTP Chilterns Conservation Board
MRTPI
Councillor Sally Symington Hertfordshire County Councillor
Gagan Mohindra MP MP for the Constituency
Page 135
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
APPENDIX B: DOCUMENTS
Doc. No Title
CD1 Application Documents
CD1.1 Application Form & Certificates
CD1.2 CIL Form
CD1.3 Application Document Summary Guide
CD1.4a/Part 1 Application Plans for Approval – Parameter Plans:
rev B Development Framework Plan HRE003-025 Rev F
CD1.4a/Part 2 Application Plans for Approval – Parameter Plans: Landscape
Rev B & OpenSpace Framework HRE003 – 026 Rev F
CD1.4a/Part 3 Application Plans for Approval – Parameter Plans: Building
Rev A Heights Plan HRE003 – 027 Rev C
CD1.4a/Part 4 Application Plans for Approval – Parameter Plans: Movement
Rev A & Access Plan HRE003 –028 Rev C
CD1.4a/Part 5 Application Plans for Approval – Parameter Plans: Density
Rev A Plan HRE003 – 029 Rev B
CD1.4b Application Plans for Approval – Access Details for Approval
CD1.4c Red Edge Location Plan
CD1.5a Application Plans Illustrative – Master Plan
CD1.5b Application Plans Illustrative – Phasing Plan
CD1.6 Environmental Statement
CD1.6a ES Appendices
CD1.6i Environmental Statement – Appendix
CD1.6ii Environmental Statement – Non-Technical Summary
CD1.7 Planning Statement
CD1.8 S.106 HoT & Very Special Circumstances Statement Rev A
CD1.9/Part 1 Design and Access Statement – Making a Place Rev A
CD1.9/Part 2 Design and Access Statement – Observing & Evaluating a
Place Rev A
CD1.9/Part 3 Design and Access Statement – Demonstrating Compliance
& Appendices Rev A
CD1.9ii/Part 1 Design and Access Statement – Appendix 2 – Utilities
Statement
CD1.9ii/Part 2 Design and Access Statement – Appendix 2 – Utilities
Statement
CD1.9ii/Part 3 Design and Access Statement – Appendix 2 – Utilities
Statement
CD1.9ii/Part 4 Design and Access Statement – Appendix 2 – Utilities
Statement
CD1.9ii/Part 5 Design and Access Statement – Appendix 2 – Utilities
Statement
CD1.9ii/Part 6 Design and Access Statement – Appendix 2 – Utilities
Statement
CD1.10/Part 1 Design Code Rev A
CD1.10/Part 2 Design Code Rev A
CD1.11/Part 1 Transport Assessment
CD1.11/Part 2 Transport Assessment
CD1.11/Part 3 Transport Assessment
CD1.11/Part 4 Transport Assessment
Page 136
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD1.11/Part 5 Transport Assessment
CD1.11a/Part 1 Addendum to the Transport Assessment
CD1.11a/Part 2 Addendum to the Transport Assessment
CD1.11a/Part 3 Addendum to the Transport Assessment
CD1.11b Transport Technical Note 15: Stantec Response to HCC
CD1.12 Framework Travel Plan
CD1.13 Statement of Community Engagement
CD1.14 Housing Needs Statement
CD1.14i Housing Needs Statement – Appendix 1
CD1.14ii Housing Needs Statement – Appendix 2
CD1.14iii Housing Needs Statement – Appendix 3
CD1.15 Socio-Economic Impact Statement
CD1.16 Health Impact Statement – Rev A
CD1.17 Energy & Sustainability Strategy
CD1.18 Archaeological Statement
CD1.18i Archaeological Desk Based Assessment
CD1.19 Built Heritage Statement
CD1.20 Education Infrastructure Assessment – Rev A
CD1.21 Sport and Physical Activity Strategy – Rev B
CD1.21a Technical Note – Sport and Physical Activity Strategy_S02
CD1.22/Part 1 Flood Risk Assessment – Rev A
CD1.22/Part 2 Flood Risk Assessment – Rev A
CD1.22/Part 3 Flood Risk Assessment – Rev A
CD1.23/Part 1 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 2 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 3 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 4 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 5 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 6 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 7 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 8 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 9 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 10 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 11 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.23/Part 12 Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
CD1.24/Part 1 Sustainable Drainage Strategy – Rev A
CD1.24/Part 2 Sustainable Drainage Strategy – Rev A
CD1.24/Part 3 Sustainable Drainage Strategy – Rev A
CD1.24/Part 4 Sustainable Drainage Strategy – Rev A
CD1.24/Part 5 Sustainable Drainage Strategy – Rev A
CD1.24/Part 6 Sustainable Drainage Strategy – Rev A
CD1.24/Part 7 Sustainable Drainage Strategy – Rev A
CD1.25 Arboricultural Report
CD1.25i/Part 1 Tree Report
CD1.25i/Part 2 Tree Report
CD1.25i/Part 3 Tree Report
CD1.26a/Part 1 Ecological Assessment – Northern Parcel
CD1.26a/Part 2 Ecological Assessment – Northern Parcel
CD1.26a/Part 3 Ecological Assessment – Northern Parcel
Page 137
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD1.26a/Part 4 Ecological Assessment – Northern Parcel
CD1.26b/Part 1 Ecological Assessment – Southern Parcel
CD1.26b/Part 2 Ecological Assessment – Southern Parcel
CD1.26b/Part 3 Ecological Assessment – Southern Parcel
CD1.26b/Part 4 Ecological Assessment – Southern Parcel
CD1.27 Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment – Rev A
CD1.27a Biodiversity Main Metric Calculation
CD1.27b Biodiversity Mini Metric Calculation
CD1.28 SANG Statement
CD1.29 Landscape and Biodiversity Management Strategy (LBMS)
CD1.30 Pre-Construction Site Waste Management Plan
CD1.31 Habitats Regulations Assessment Rev A
CD1.32 Sustainability Appraisal
CD1.33 Draft SANG Management Plan
CD2 Dacorum Borough Council (DBC) Documents relating
to the application
CD2.1 Pre-application response
CD2.2 Urban Design pre-application response
CD2.3 Scoping opinion (with appendices)
CD2.4 Report to Development Management Committee
CD2.5 First addendum report to development management
committee
CD2.6 Second addendum report to development management
committee
CD2.7 Committee minute
CD2.8 DBC Decision Notice
CD3 Consultation responses to the application
CD3.1 Environmental and Community Protection (Air Quality)
CD3.2 Hertfordshire CC Highways
CD3.3 Chilterns Conservation Board
CD3.3a Chilterns Conservation Board (comments on appeal)
CD3.4 British Pipeline Agency
CD3.5 The Chiltern Society
CD3.6 The Countryside Charity
CD3.7 Canal River & Trust
CD3.8 Conservation (DBC)
CD3.9 Strategic Planning & Regeneration (DBC)
CD3.10 Rights of Way (DBC)
CD3.11 Trees & Woodlands
CD3.12 Environment Agency
CD3.13 Environmental & Community Protection (DBC) - Land
Contamination
CD3.14 Historic England
CD3.15 Forestry Commission
CD3.16 Historic Environment (Archaeology) (HCC)
CD3.17 Education (HCC)
CD3.18 Health & Safety Executive
CD3.19 Hertfordshire Property Services (HCC)
CD3.20 Hertfordshire Ecology
Page 138
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD3.20a Hertfordshire Ecology -(comments on appeal)
CD3.21 Fire Hydrants (HCC)
CD3.22 Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue (HCC)
CD3.23 Hertfordshire Gardens Trust
CD3.24 Herts & Middlesex Badger Group
CD3.25 Crime Prevention Design Advisor
CD3.26 Highways England
CD3.27 Lead Local Flood Authority (HCC)
CD3.28 National Air Traffic Services
CD3.29 Natural England
CD3.29a Natural England (comments on appeal)
CD3.30 Herts Valleys CCG
CD3.31 The National Trust
CD3.32 Network Rail
CD3.33 Waste Services (DBC)
CD3.34 Sport England
CD3.35 Cadent Gas Limited
CD3.36 Affinity Water – Three Valleys Water PLC
CD3.37 Thames Water
CD3.38 East of England Ambulance Service
CD3.39 Parish / Town Council
CD3.40 Urban Design (DBC)
CD3.41 Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust
CD3.42 Environmental and Community Protection (DBC) - Noise
CD3.43 Next Phase submission on behalf of Grove Fields Residents
(appeal submission)
CD3.44 Huskisson Brown on behalf of Tring Town Council (appeal
submission)
CD3.45a HDA Landscape comments 1
CD3.45b HDA Landscape comments 2
CD4 Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and associated
evidence base
CD4.1 Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1999 – 2011 (adopted 2004)
CD4.1a DBC Local Plan Proposals Map (sheet 1)
CD4.1b DBC Local Plan Proposals Map (sheet 2)
CD4.2 Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2006 – 2031) (adopted
2013)
CD4.3 Landscape Character Assessment (2004)
CD4.4 Dacorum Urban Design Assessment Tring (2011)
CD4.5 Not used
CD4.6 High Court Judgement re Core Strategy (12 June 2014)
CD4.7 Core Strategy Examining Inspector’s Report (9 July 2013)
CD4.8 Site Allocations DPD (July 2017)
CD4.9 Site Allocations DPD Examining Inspector’s Report (April
2017)
CD5 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) and
Guidance (SPG)
CD5.1 Affordable Housing SPD (2013)
CD5.2 Car Parking Standards SPD (2020)
Page 139
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD5.3a Dacorum Strategic Design Guide SPD: Design Process
(February 2021)
CD5.3b Dacorum Strategic Design Guide SPD: Design Principles
(February 2021)
CD5.4 Planning Obligations SPG (2011)
CD5.5 Refuse Storage Guidance Note (2015)
CD5.6 Extracts of Environmental Guidelines SPG (2004)
CD5.7 Sustainable Development Advice Note (2016)
CD5.8 Affordable Housing SPD - Clarification Note version 4 dated
March 2022
CD5.9 Employment and Skills draft SPD (October 2022)
CD6 Other Policy, Guidance Documents and Reports
CD6.1 National Planning Policy Framework
CD6.2 National PPG (on-line: Planning practice guidance - GOV.UK
(www.gov.uk)
CD6.3 Manual for Streets (2010)
CD6.4 Roads in Hertfordshire, Highways Design Guide 3rd Edition
(2011)
CD6.5 Chilterns Conservation Board Position Statement –
Development affecting the setting of the Chilterns AONB
(2011)
CD6.6 Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management
Plan (2019 – 2024)
CD6.7 National Model Design Code - The Coding Process (2021)
CD6.7a National Model Design Code - Guidance Notes
CD6.8 National Design Guide (2021)
CD6.9 T&CPA Understanding Garden Villages
CD6.10 Chilterns Building Design Guide (2010)
CD6.11 Chilterns Building Design Guide – Chilterns Brick Technical
Note (2006)
CD6.12 Chilterns Building Design Guide – Roofing Materials Technical
Note (2007)
CD6.13 Not used
CD6.14 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 Auditing and accounting for
biodiversity User Guide
CD6.15 Biodiversity Metric 3.1 Auditing and accounting for
biodiversity Technical Supplement
CD6.16 Environment Act 2021
CD6.17 GPA2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the
Historic Environment (March 2015) – Historic England
CD6.18 GPA3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (December 2017) –
Historic England
CD6.19 Levelling up on the United Kingdom White Paper (2022)
CD6.20 Planning for the Future: Hertfordshire Local Skills Report
(2021)
CD6.21 GLVIA ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment Third Edition Spon Press’ 2013 (on line -
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment -
3rd Edition - (routledge.com)
Page 140
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD6.22 LLFA Summary Guide for developers, updated August 2021
(Hertfordshire County Council)
CD6.23 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LMFRS 2, 2019-
2029), Adopted 18 February 2019 (Hertfordshire County
Council)
CD6.24 Sustainable Drainage Systems, Non-statutory technical
standards for sustainable drainage systems, dated March
2015 (DEFRA)
CD6.25 South West Hertfordshire Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment, Final Report, dated October 2018 (Ref
2018s0161 SW Hertfordshire L1 SFRA v4.0, JBA Consulting)
CD6.26 Mission Zero
CD6.27 Bleak Houses: Tackling the Crisis of Family Homelessness in
England”; Children's Commissioner; August 2019
CD6.28 Unlocking Social Housing: How to fix the rules that hold back
building”; Shelter; April 2022
CD6.29 Rising Cost of living in the UK"; House of Commons Library;
November 2022
CD6.30 Briefing: Cost of Living Crisis and the Housing Emergency";
Shelter; September 2022
CD6.31 Denied the Right to a Safe Home: Exposing the Housing
Emergency: Shelter, (May 2021)
CD6.32 Written Ministerial Statement 6 Dec 2022
CD6.33 PINS Note re Gove Letter and WMS
CD6.34 Consultation on Amendments to NPPF (22 December 2022)
CD6.35 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017)
CD6.36 Shelter in partnership with ComRes (2017) The Impact of
Housing Problems on Mental Health
CD6.37 Hertfordshire LEP (July 2017) Perfectly Placed for Business:
the refreshed Strategic Economic Plan: 2017-2030
CD6.38 Hertfordshire Local Industrial Strategy: Draft for consultation
(September 2019), page 33
CD6.39 Working from Home: Planning for the new normal?
(December 2021) Barratt Developments PLC / Lichfields
CD6.40 Hertfordshire CC Local Transport Plan (2018 – 2031)
CD6.41 Natural England Technical Information Note 49 – Agricultural
Land Classification: protecting the best and most versatile
agricultural land
CD6.42 Housing in later life; planning ahead for specialist housing
for older people: National Housing Federation, Housing LIN,
McCarthy & Stone, Contact Consulting, Tetlow King Planning
(December 2012).
CD6.43 Government response to the Second Report of Session
2017-19 of the Housing, Communities and Local Government
Select Committee inquiry into Housing for Older People
(September 2018)
CD6.44 Housing our Ageing Population: Plan for Implementation; All
Party Parliamentary Group for Housing and Care for Older
People (2012).
Page 141
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD6.45 People at the Heart of Care: Adult Social Care Reform White
Paper, Department of Health & Social Care (December 2021)
CD6.46 Meeting Housing Demand report; House of Lords (10th Jan
2022)
CD6.47 Her Majesty’s Government’s response to the House of Lords
Built Environment Committee report on Meeting Housing
Demand (28 March 2022)
CD6.48 Joining up care for people, places and populations: The
government's proposals for health and care integration,
Department of Health and Social Care (09 February 2022)
CD6.49 Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Strategy
(December 2022)
CD6.50 Housing for Older People, RTPI (November 2022)
CD6.51 Mid Sussex District Council’s Site Allocations Development
Plan Main Modifications (November 2021)
CD6.52 Mid Sussex District Council’s Site Allocations Development
Plan (June 2022)
CD6.53 The health and social care cost-benefits of housing for older
people (2019)
CD6.54 The Extra Care Charitable Trust Research Report (2019)
CD6.55 The Mayhew Review; Future Proofing Retirement Living –
Easing the Care and Housing Crisis (November 2022)
CD6.56 Article from the Guardian: Up to one in three English hospital
beds occupied by patients fit for discharge (Nov 2022):
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/13/hospital-
beds-englandoccupied-patients-fit-discharge
CD6.57 The Association of Directors of Adults Social Services,
Autumn Survey Report (November 2022)
CD6.58 The Association of Directors of Adults Social Services, Adult
Social Care – Shaping a Better Future; Nine Statements to
Help Shape Adult Social Care Reform (July 2020)
CD6.59 Centre for Policy Studies – The Case for Housebuilding
(January 2023)
CD6.60 Build Bulletin 103 – Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools
CD6.61 Guide to Developer Contributions Technical Appendix 3:
Education (Mainstream Schools)
CD6.62 HCC Hertfordshire Place and Movement Design Guide (July
2021)
CD6.63 Hertfordshire Speed Management Strategy November 2020
CD7 Emerging Local Plan and its evidence base
CD7.1.1 Emerging Local Plan Documents: Dacorum Local Plan 2020-
2038, Emerging Strategy for Growth (November 2020) Part
1
CD7.1.2 Emerging Local Plan Documents: Dacorum Local Plan 2020-
2038, Emerging Strategy for Growth (November 2020) Part
2
CD7.1.3 Emerging Local Plan Documents: Dacorum Local Plan 2020-
2038, Emerging Strategy for Growth (November 2020) Part
3
Page 142
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD7.1.4 Emerging Local Plan Documents: Dacorum Local Plan 2020-
2038, Emerging Strategy for Growth (November 2020) Part
4
CD7.1.5 Emerging Local Plan Documents: Dacorum Local Plan 2020-
2038, Emerging Strategy for Growth (November 2020) –
Proposals Map
CD7.1.6 Emerging Local Plan Documents: Dacorum Local Plan 2020-
2038, Emerging Strategy for Growth (November 2020) –
Summary document
CD7.2 Local Development Scheme (February 2022)
CD7.3 Local Development Scheme (January 2016)
CD7.4 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2016)
CD7.5 Settlements Profiles Topic Paper (2017)
CD7.6 Housing Topic Paper
CD7.7 AECOM Site Assessment Study (2020)
CD7.8 Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report (2020)
CD7.9.1 Dacorum Landscape Sensitivity Study (2020) Part 1
CD7.9.2 Dacorum Landscape Sensitivity Study (2020) Part 8
CD7.9.3 Dacorum Landscape Sensitivity Study (2020) Part 9
CD7.10 Dacorum Local Plan Consultation Summary Report (2021)
CD7.11 Visitor Survey, Recreation Impact Assessment and Mitigation
Requirements for the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC and the
Dacorum Local Plan (2022)
CD7.12 Tring Conservation Area Appraisal (2019)
CD7.13 Open Space Study – Standards Paper (2019)
CD7.14 Employment Development Topic Paper (2020)
CD7.15.1 Green Belt Topic Paper
CD7.15.2 Green Belt Topic Paper Appendix A
CD7.15.3 Green Belt Topic Paper Appendix B
CD7.16 Emerging Local Plan Documents: Issue and Options
September 2017
CD7.17 Site Selection Topic Paper November 2020
CD7.18 Development Strategy Topic Paper November 2020
CD7.19 Custom and Self Build Topic Paper 2020
CD7.20.1 Site Assessment Study Vol 1
CD7.20.2 Site Assessment Study Vol 3 part 3
CD7.21 Urban Capacity Study, main report 2020
CD7.21a Urban Capacity Study - Tring sites
CD7.21b Urban Capacity Study Historic Windfall Data
CD7.21c Urban Capacity Study – Hemel Hempstead sites
CD7.22 Infrastructure Delivery Plan
CD7.22a Infrastructure Delivery Plan – Tring Schedule
CD7.23.1 Green Belt Review 2013 Final report part 1
CD7.23.2 Green Belt Review 2013 Final report part 2
CD7.23.3 Green Belt Review 2013 Annex 1
CD7.23.4 Green Belt Review 2016 Annex 1 ARUP
CD7.23.5 Green Belt Review stage 3 final report part 3a 2020
CD7.23.6 Green Belt Review stage 3 final report part 3b 2020
CD7.23.7 Green Belt Review stage 3 final report Annex B 2020
Page 143
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD7.24 AECOM Sustainable Transport Study 2020
CD7.25 Dacorum Borough Council (2020) Further Dacorum Retail
Study
CD7.26 Dacorum Growth and Infrastructure Strategy to 2050
CD7.27 Chiltern Beechwoods Topic Paper summary of evidence
CD7.28 Climate change and sustainability topic paper
CD8 South West Hertfordshire Joint Strategic Plan
CD8.1 South West Hertfordshire Local Housing Needs Assessment
(2020)
CD8.2 SW Herts Joint Strategic Plan: Realising our Potential –
Regulation 18 Consultation Document (2022)
CD8.3 SW Herts Joint Strategic Plan ‘Living in South West Herts:
What have we heard?’ (2021)
CD8.4 South West Hertfordshire Strategic Housing Market
Assessment 2016
CD8.4a South West Hertfordshire Strategic Housing Market
Assessment 2016 (Appendices)
CD8.5 Housing Topic Paper
CD8.6 South West Hertfordshire Retail and Leisure Study
(September 2018), Appendix C
CD9 Housing Land Documents
CD9.1 Authority Monitoring Report 2019/20 (2021)
CD9.1a Authority Monitoring Report 2019/20, Technical Appendix
CD9.2 Housing Delivery Test Action Plan (2021)
CD9.3 London Commuter Belt (West) Sub-Region Strategic Housing
Market Assessment 2008
CD9.4 Residential Land Position Statement (April 2022)
CD9.5 DBC Housing Schedule and Trajectory (November 2022)
CD9.6 DBC Housing Schedule and Trajectory (December 2022)
CD9.7 Correspondence from DBC (8 December 2022)
CD9.8 Correspondence from DBC (19 December 2022)
CD10 Other Dacorum Borough Council Documents and
Reports
CD10.1 Pages from Report to Cabinet regarding Chilterns
Beechwoods (15 November 2022)
CD10.2 Policy Statement: Sustainable Drainage, version 1, dated
February 2015 (Dacorum Borough Council)
CD10.3 Homes for the Future Housing Strategy 2019-2021
CD10.4 Prevention of Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy
2020-2024
CD10.5 ‘Delivering for Dacorum' Corporate Plan 2020-2025
CD10.6 Dacorum Growth and Infrastructure Strategy to 2050
CD10.7 Dacorum Recovery Plan (September 2021)
CD10.8 Minutes of Scrutiny Committee July 2021
CD10.9 Report to Cabinet 20 July considered 27 July 2021
CD10.10 DBC Climate and Ecological Emergency (CEE) Strategy
CD11 Appeal Decisions and Court Judgements
CD11.1 Roundhouse Farm, Colney Heath (APP/B1930/W/20/3265925
& 6)
Page 144
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD11.2 Little Sparrows, Sonning Common
(APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861)
CD11.3 Land off Pump Lane, Rainham (APP/A2280/W/20/3259868)
CD11.4 Land at Filands Road /Jenner Lane, Malmesbury
(APP/Y3940/W/21/3278256)
CD11.5 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire
District Council & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 14
CD11.6 Cranfield Road, Woburn Sands, Milton Keynes, June 2020
(APP/Y0435/W/17/3169314)
CD11.7 Gleneagles Way, Hatfield Peverel
(APP/Z1510/V/17/3180729)
CD11.8 Land to the west of Langton Road, (Norton
APP/Y2736/W/15/3136237)
CD11.9 Land at the corner of Oving Road and A27, Chichester
(APP/L3815/W/16/31652283165228__https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3165228__View appeal 3165228 on ACP website__true__ on ACP website__true__)
CD11.10 Not used
CD11.11 Not used
CD11.12 Site of the former Hazeldens Nursery, London Road,
Albourne, West Sussex BN6 9BL
(APP/D3830/W/19/3241644)
CD11.13 North Lane, Huntington, York (December 2022)
(APP/C2741/W/21/3282969)
CD11.14 Haverhill Road and Hinton Way, Stapleford
(APP/W0530/W/21/3280395)
CD11.15 Land to the rear of the former Dylon International Premises,
Station Approach, Lower Sydenham, London; June 2019
(APP/G5180/W/18/3206569)
CD11.16 Footzie Social Club, Station Approach, Lower Sydenham;
March 2021 (APP/G5180/W/20/3257010)
CD11.17 Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley Campus, College Close,
Wheatley, Oxford; April 2020 (APP/Q3115/W/19/3230827)
CD11.18 Land at Maitland Lodge, Southend Road, Billericay;
November 2022 (APP/V1505/W/22/3296116)
CD11.19 Land to the West of Burley-in-Wharfdale at Sun Lane and
Ilkley Road; March 2021 (APP/W4705/V/18/3208020)
CD11.20 North of Boroughbridge Road, South of Millfield Lane, York;
October 2019 (APP/C2741/W/19/3227359)
CD11.21 Land at Beeches Park, Beaconsfield. December 2022 (APP/
N0410/W/22/3299849)
CD11.22 Land north of Kennel Lane, Billericay. December 2022
(APP/V1505/W/22/3298599)
CD11.23 Green Road, Woolpit, Suffolk. September 2018
(APP/W3520/W/18/3194926)
CD11.24 North Lodge Farm, Effingham, Leatherhead. November 2022
(APP/Y3615/W/22/3298341 & 3928390)
CD11.25 Cox Green Road, Rudgwick, Surrey. September 2019
(APP/R3650/W/19/3227970)
CD11.26 Popes Lane, Sturry, Canterbury (APP/J2210/W/18/3216104
CD11.27 Caddywell Lane, Great Torrington, Devon
(APP/W1145/W/19/3238460
Page 145
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
CD11.28 Spruce Close Exeter. August 2022
(APP/Y1110/W/22/3292721)
CD11.29 Corner Mead, Newland Lane, Droitwich Spa (13 July 2020)
APP/H1840/W/19/3241879
CD11.30 Land at Pear Tree Lane, Euxton (11 August 2020)
APP/D2320/W/20/3247136
CD11.31 Land behind 31-33 The Causeway, Steventon (28 May 2021)
APP/V3120/W/20/3265465
CD11.32 Land east of Park Lane, Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
(6 September 2018) APP/P0119/W/17/3191477
CD11.33 Land off Hepworth Road, Woodville (25 June 2019)
APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 (Appeal A) and
APP/G2435/Q/18/3214498 (Appeal B)
CD11.34 Land South of (East of Griffin Place) Radwinter Road,
Sewards End, Saffron Walden (5 October 2022)
APP/C1570/W/22/3296426
CD11.35 Land off Darnhall School Lane, Winsford, Cheshire (4
November 2019) APP/A0665/W/14/2212671
CD11.36 Land adj Orchard Business Park, Ledbury (21 March 2021)
APP/W1850/W/20/3244410
CD11.37 Inglewood, Brixham Road, Paignton
APP/X1165/W/20/3245011
CD11.38 Pulley Lane, Droitwich Spa, Worcestershire (July 2014) Cover
Sheet
CD12 Documents submitted post decision by Dacorum
Borough Council
CD12.1 Village Centre Detailed Study Dec 22
CD12.2 Draft S.106
CD12.3 Southern Site access drawing (50mph)
CD12.4 JBA Correspondence and Technical Notes of Flood risk rfr 8
and rfr9
CD12.5 Response to Road Safety Audit for Bulbourne Road Access
CD12.6 Response to Road Safety Audit for Station Road Access
CD12.7 Inspector notes of Case Management Conference
CD12.8 Main Statement of Common Ground
CD12.9 Highways Statement of Common Ground
CD12.10 Education Statement of Common Ground
CD12.11 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement of Common Ground
CD12.12 Landscape Statement of Common Ground
CD12.13 CIL Compliance Statement
Page 146
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
APP Appellants’ Evidence
APP0 Statement of Case
APP1 Samantha Ryan Proof of Evidence
APP1a Samantha Ryan Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP1b Samantha Ryan Summary Proof of Evidence
APP2 Matthew Chard Proof of Evidence
APP2a Matthew Chard Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP2b Matthew Chard Summary Proof of Evidence
APP3 James Stacey Proof of Evidence
APP3a James Stacey Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP4 Annie Gingell Proof of Evidence
APP4a Annie Gingell Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP4b Annie Gingell Summary Proof of Evidence
APP5 James Donagh Proof of Evidence
APP5a James Donagh Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP5b James Donagh Summary Proof of Evidence
APP6 Antony Pollard Proof of Evidence
APP6a Antony Pollard Summary Proof of Evidence
APP7 Robert Coles Proof of Evidence
APP8 Rebecca Lydon Proof of Evidence
APP8a Rebecca Lydon Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP8b Rebecca Lydon Summary Proof of Evidence
APP9 Kerrie Norman Proof of Evidence
APP9a Kerrie Norman Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP9b Kerrie Norman Rebuttal Proof of Evidence
APP10 Scott Witchalls Proof of Evidence
APP10a Scott Witchalls Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP10b Scott Witchalls Summary Proof of Evidence
APP11 Peter Hadfield Proof of Evidence
APP11a Peter Hadfield Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP11b Peter Hadfield Summary Proof of Evidence
APP12 Jonathan Smith Proof of Evidence
APP13 Alastair Field Proof of Evidence
APP14 Stuart Nelmes Proof of Evidence
APP14a Stuart Nelmes Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP15 Revd Professor Bob May Proof of Evidence
APP15a Revd Professor Bob May Proof of Evidence Appendices
APP15b Revd Professor Bob May Summary Proof of Evidence
DBC Council’s Evidence
DBC0 Statement of Case
DBC1 Ronan Leydon Proof of Evidence
DBC1a Ronan Leydon Proof of Evidence Appendices
DBC1b Ronan Leydon Summary Proof of Evidence
DBC1c Ronan Leydon Rebuttal Proof of Evidence
DBC2 James Dale Proof of Evidence and Appendix
DBC2a James Dale Proof of Evidence Appendices
DBC2b James Dale Rebuttal Proof of Evidence
DBC3 Tanya Kirk Proof of Evidence
DBC3a Tanya Kirk Proof of Evidence Appendices
Page 147
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
DBC3b Tanya Kirk Rebuttal Proof of Evidence
DBC4 Martin Wells Statement in support of planning obligations
sought towards Hertfordshire County Council (non-highways)
services
DBC4a Martin Wells Appendices to Statement
DBC4b Dan Harding Rebuttal Proof of Evidence
DBC4c Dan Harding Rebuttal Proof of Evidence Appendices
DBC5 Martin Stickley Proof of Evidence
DBC5a Martin Stickley Proof of Evidence Appendices
DBC5b Martin Stickley Summary Proof of Evidence
DBC5c Martin Stickley Rebuttal Proof of Evidence
COG Combined Objectors’ Group’s Evidence
COG0 Statement of Case
COG1 Nicola Brown Proof of Evidence and Appendices
COG2 Chris Berry Proof of Evidence and Appendices
Page 148
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
ID Evidence submitted after opening the Inquiry
ID1 List of appearances for Dacorum Borough Council, submitted
by the Council on 7 March
ID2 Interested Party Statement submitted by Elizabeth Hamilton,
submitted by Elizabeth Hamilton on 7 March
ID3 Letter of Objection and Transport Analysis Report of Peter
Davidson, submitted by Peter Davidson on 7 March
ID4 Supplemental Main Statement of Common Ground,
submitted by the Appellants on 7 March
ID5 Statement of Sue Yeomans, submitted by Sue Yeomans on 7
March
ID6 Opening Statement on behalf of the Appellants, submitted by
the Appellants on 7 March
ID7 Opening Statement on behalf of Dacorum Borough Council,
submitted by the Council on 7 March
ID8 Opening on behalf of the Combined Objectors’ Group,
submitted by the Combined Objectors’ Group on 7 March
ID9 Statement of Steve Ballantyne, submitted by Steve
Ballantyne on 7 March
ID10 Note of Site Visit Key Points, submitted by the Appellants on
7 March
ID11 Site Visit Plan, submitted by the Appellants on 7 March
ID12 Statement of Councillor Penny Hearn, submitted by
Councillor Penny Hearn on 8 March
ID13 Bunkers Park Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace
Management Plan, submitted by the Appellants on 8 March
ID14 Statement of Philip Moore, submitted by Philip Moore on 8
March
ID15 Tring- Mark Steel’s in Town web site, submitted by the
Appellants on 8 March
ID16 Update to Dacorum Borough Council’s Five Year Land Supply
Position, submitted by the Council on 10 March
ID17 Appeal Decision Ref APP/X0415/W/22/3303868, Amersham,
submitted by the Appellants on 10 March
ID18 Appeal Decision Ref APP/Q4245/W/3306715, Timperley,
submitted by the Appellants on 10 March
ID19 Accommodation Analysis- Tring School Indoor PE Facilities,
submitted by the Appellants on 22 March
ID20 Cost Analysis- Scorecard vs Framework Cost Estimates,
submitted by the Appellants on 22 March
ID21 Email of 22 March regarding active ICT from Stelios
Stylianou, Education, submitted by the Appellants on 22
March
ID22 List of witnesses for the Appellants, submitted by the
Appellants on 22 March
ID23 Schedule of Core Documents, submitted by the Appellants on
22 March
ID24 Antony Pollard Proof of Evidence: In Erratum, submitted by
the Appellants on 22 March
Page 149
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
ID25 Guidelines for Creation of Suitable Alternative Greenspace
(SANG) August 2021, submitted by the Appellants on 22
March
ID26 Tables of Affordable Housing Mix, submitted by the
Appellants on 22 March
ID27 Additional Comments to Interested Party Statement
submitted by Elizabeth Hamilton, submitted by Elizabeth
Hamilton on 22 March
ID28 Statement of Nicky Hulse, submitted by Nicky Hulse on 23
March
ID28A Written Statement of Moira Freeman Lea, dated 22 March
2023, submitted by Moira Freeman Lea on 23 March 2023
ID29 West Midlands Railway Letter of Support for Marshcroft
Development at Tring, dated 23 March 2023, submitted by
the Appellants on 23 March
ID30 Stantec Technical Note: Bus Service Strategy, dated 23
February 2023, submitted by the Appellants on 23 March
ID31 Emails of Hertfordshire County Council regarding buses,
submitted by the Appellants on 23 March
ID32 Executive Summary of Statement of Peter Davidson,
submitted by Peter Davidson on 23 March
ID33 Timeline of Discussions regarding Education requirements
and contribution, submitted by the Appellants on 24 March
INQ34 Statement of Tim Amsden, submitted by the Tim Amsden on
24 March
ID35 Map with additional viewpoints, submitted by the Combined
Objectors’ Group on 28 March
ID36 Statement of Jennifer O’Brien read out at the Inquiry,
submitted by Jennifer O’Brien on 28 March
ID37 Statement of Rachel Moore read out at the Inquiry,
submitted by Rachel Moore on 28 March
ID38 Statement of Councillor Sally Symington read out at the
Inquiry, submitted by Councillor Sally Symington on 28
March
ID39 Pie Chart of Ground Truthed ZTV- Figure HAD 2, submitted
by the Appellants on 29 March
ID40 Condition Schedule 29 March 2023, submitted by the Council
on 29 March
ID41 Plan of the Chiltern Hills, submitted by the Appellants on 30
March
ID42 Copies of Slides from a talk by Natural England regarding
criteria for designating an AONB, submitted by the
Appellants on 30 March
ID43 Draft S106 Obligations and Schedule of disagreement,
submitted by the Appellants on 31 March
ID44 Draft Unilateral Undertaking Scheme A, submitted by the
Appellants on 31 March
ID45 Draft Unilateral Undertaking Scheme B, submitted by the
Appellants on 31 March
Page 150
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
ID46 CIL Compliance Statement and Appendices, submitted by the
Council on 31 March
ID46A HCC CIL Statement input on Secondary School Contribution
uplift, submitted by the Council on 31 March
ID47 Supplemental Main Statement of Common Ground on
Affordable Housing Mix, submitted by the Council on 31
March
ID48 Copy of notes read at the Inquiry by Dr Matt Thomson,
Chilterns Conservation Board, submitted by Dr Matt
Thomson on 31 March
ID49 Transcript of Statement delivered by Dr Matt Thomson,
Chilterns Conservation Board, submitted by Dr Matt
Thomson on 31 March
ID50 Condition Schedule 31 March 2023, submitted by the
Appellants on 31 March
ID51 Timeline of Discussions regarding Education requirements
and contribution with Hertfordshire County Council
comments, submitted by Appellants on 4 April
ID52 Table calculating the Secondary Education Contribution, 4
April 2023, submitted by Appellants on 4 April
ID53 Secondary and Post-16 Contribution Tables, submitted by
Appellants on 4 April
ID54 Copy of Email from Dan Hardy, dated 28 March 2023
regarding Education contribution calculations, submitted by
Appellants on 4 April
ID55 Table calculating the Secondary Education Contribution, 4
April 2023, submitted by Appellants on 5 April
ID56 Document with website for All-Party Parliamentary Group for
Regeneration & Levelling Up, submitted by Appellants on 5
April
ID56A Gagan Mohindra MP speaking notes, submitted by Gagan
Mohindra 0n 5 April
ID57 APPG Website Extracts, submitted by the Appellants on 5
April
ID58 CIL Compliance Statement Version 5, submitted by the
Council on 19 April
ID59 Third Supplemental Main Statement of Common Ground on
Extension to area of Ashbridge’s National Park and Garden,
submitted by the Appellants on 24 April
ID60 Amended Table 4 to Martin Stickley Rebuttal Proof of
Evidence, submitted by the Council on 25 April
ID61 Amended Table 1 to Martin Stickley Rebuttal Proof of
Evidence, submitted by the Council on 25 April
ID62 West Midlands Railways letter, dated 21 April 2023,
submitted by the Appellants on 25 April
ID63 Appeal Site Street Tree Study, April 2023, submitted by the
Appellants on 25 April
ID64 E-mail, dated 21 April 2023 from Bob May regarding
increased verge width and tree planting with suggested
planning condition, submitted by the Appellants on 25 April
Page 151
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
ID65 Addendum to Proof of Evidence on Agricultural Land of
Alastair Field, submitted by the Appellants on 25 April
ID66 CPRE Document- Countryside next door: State of the Green
Belt 2021, February 2021, submitted by the Appellants on 25
April
ID67 Bunkers Hill- Appellants’ analysis and site notes, submitted
by the Appellants on 25 April
ID68 Copies of Draft Indicative Phasing Plan and Plan of CAs &
Self-build/Custom Build extents, submitted by the Appellants
on 26 April
ID69 Draft Section 106 Planning Obligation by Deed of Agreement,
submitted by the Appellants on 26 April
ID70 Section 106: Schedule of matters not yet agreed between
the parties, submitted by the Appellants on 26 April
ID71 Draft Planning Obligation by Unilateral Undertaking with
track changes, submitted by the Appellants on 26 April
ID72 Draft Unilateral Undertaking Memorandum, dated 26 April
2023, submitted by the Appellants on 26 April
ID73 CIL Compliance Statement Version 6, submitted by the
Council on 26 April
ID74 Suggested Condition Schedule- 24 April 2023, submitted by
the Council on 26 April
ID75 Document- Principles of Lighting Design for Bats, submitted
by the Appellants on 27 April
ID76 Further Site Visit Note and Maps, submitted by the
Appellants on 27 April
ID77 Closing Submission on behalf of the Council, submitted by
the Council on 2 May
ID78 Closing Submission on behalf of the Combined Objectors
Group, submitted by the Combined Objectors Group on 2
May
ID79 Section 106 Agreement, submitted by the Appellants on 4
May
ID80 Unilateral Undertaking, submitted by the Appellants on 4
May
ID81 Agreed Planning Conditions Schedule, submitted by the
Appellants on 4 May
ID82 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Appellants, submitted
by the Appellants on 4 May
ID83 Amended Unilateral Undertaking and Appendices, submitted
by the Appellants on 5 May
ID84 Unilateral Undertaking, submitted by the Appellants on
2 June
ID85 Final engrossed section 106 Agreement, submitted by the
Council on 12 June
Page 152
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
APPENDIX C: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Full Permission Statutory Conditions
1) The access development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the
expiration of one year from the date of this permission or within one year of the
signing of a section 278 Agreement relating to those works, whichever is the
later. Prior to commencement, the local planning authority shall be notified in
writing of which access plan for Station Road is included in the section 278
Agreement.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
• Stantec Drawing 332110605/5500/003/H showing the proposed T-Junction
access to the site via Bulbourne Road
• The approved Station Road access plan as agreed in the section 278
Agreement which shall be either Plan (a): Stantec Drawing
332110605/5500/011/D showing a signal controlled access to the site from
Station Road with a 40mph design speed or Plan (b): Stantec Drawing
332110605/5500/044/B showing a signal controlled access to the site from
Station Road with a 50mph design speed.
Full Permission Pre-commencement Conditions
3) Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Site Waste Management
Plan (SWMP)
Prior to the commencement of each access development hereby approved, as
well as the enabling works, a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) and a
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for that access Phase shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The SWMP shall, as a minimum, describe how materials will be managed
efficiently and disposed of during the construction of the works, explaining how
the re-use and recycling of materials will be maximised.
The CEMP shall set out, as a minimum, the proposed demolition, earthworks and
construction methodology. The CEMP shall outline site specific measures to
control and monitor impact arising in relation to construction traffic, noise and
vibration, dust and air pollutants, land contamination, ecology and ground water.
It shall also set out arrangements by which the developer shall maintain
communication with residents and businesses in the vicinity of the site, and by
which the developer shall monitor and document compliance with the measures
set out in the CEMP. In addition to those commitments outlined within the
Stantec Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan (referenced
332110605/300 and dated 6 March 2022), the CEMP shall include a commitment
to require non-road mobile machinery that reasonably minimises air pollution
emissions.
The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Page 153
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
4) Tree Protection
No work (including site clearance) in relation to the access development hereby
approved shall be undertaken until full details setting out how retained trees,
identified in the plans approved under Condition 2, shall be protected, in
accordance with BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and
construction), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Details shall include:
• A scaled Tree Protection Plan showing the approved development layout and
retained trees (surveyed in accordance with BS5837:2012), to include their
accurate crown spreads and root protection areas (RPAs).
• The sequential order of events required for tree protection.
• The position and specification of tree protection fencing in accordance with
BS5837:2012 (as applicable).
• The position and specification of ground protection in accordance with
BS5837:2012 (as applicable).
• Details of hard surfacing constructed using no-dig techniques where proposed
over the RPA of retained trees (as applicable).
• Details of proposed levels.
• The position of service routes and drainage (to include soakaways), and
means of installation if these encroach through the RPA of retained trees.
• The position(s) of welfare site cabins and areas for the storage of materials.
• Tree protection measures during the landscaping stage(s).
• Details of arboricultural site supervision to include timing and how each site
visit shall be recorded.
There shall be no excavation, changes in levels, storage of materials or access
within the RPA of retained trees.
Arboricultural supervision shall include a pre-commencement site visit prior to
any work commencing. The local planning authority shall be informed of this at
least three working days prior to it occurring. Arboricultural monitoring reports
shall be sent to the local planning authority within five working days of each site
visit.
The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Outline Permission Statutory Conditions
5) Reserved Matters to be Submitted
Approval of the details of the layout, scale, design and external appearance of
the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved
matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing for each
phase of development before any development in that phase of development is
commenced.
Page 154
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
6) Timing of Reserved Matters Submissions
Submission of all reserved matters for the first phase of residential development
(93 dwellings) shall be made within 12 months from the date of this outline
permission or within 12 months of the commencement of the access development
hereby permitted, whichever is the later.
All other submissions for approval of the reserved matters for other phases of
development shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration
of 8 years from the date of this outline permission.
7) Timing of Reserved Matters Commencements
The first phase of residential development (93 dwellings) shall be begun before
the expiration of 12 months from the date of approval of the final reserved
matter for that phase, or the final approval of details required to be submitted
pursuant to pre-commencement conditions for that phase, whichever is the later.
The remainder of the development permitted shall be begun before the expiration
of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved within that phase.
8) Approved Plans/Documents
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans/documents:
• Parameter plans: Development Framework Plan HRE003-025 Rev F
• Parameter plans: Landscape & Open Space Framework HRE003–026 Rev F
• Parameter plans: Building Heights Plan HRE003–027 Rev C
• Parameter plans: Movement & Access Plan HRE003–028 Rev C
• Parameter plans: Density Plan HRE003–029 Rev B
• Design Code Rev A including its Regulatory Plan (Figure 6)
Outline Permission Details to accompany Reserved Matters Submissions
9) Application(s) for each phase of reserved matters consent (as relevant) shall be
accompanied by:
i. A plan identifying the Phase of development covered by that Reserved
Matters application in relation to the overall Phasing Strategy approved
under Condition 11.
ii. Full details in relation to the design of estate roads for that phase.
iii. Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact and Method Statement for that
phase.
iv. Plans to confirm how the provision of two trees per dwelling are to be
provided in that phase, noting species and tree sizes.
Page 155
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
v. A sustainability and energy compliance statement. The Compliance
Statement shall provide detail on energy demand and supply, carbon
emissions, waste and materials, water supply and demand and climate
resilience.
vi. A detailed scheme for the provision of car parking / powered two-wheeler
parking, Blue Badge parking, active and passive electric vehicle charging
points and for any blocks of flats cycle parking.
vii. Location, design and materials of covered and secure cycle parking for all
dwellings and other buildings in that phase.
viii. Details of the existing and finished site levels, the finished floor and ridge
levels and the finished external surface levels
ix. Full details of the internal layout of the proposed residential units which
shall be designed to comply with the Technical Housing Standards -
Nationally Described Space Standard (2015), or such updated guidance.
x. A detailed refuse and recycling strategy, including the design and location
of the refuse and recycling stores.
xi. Full details of the private amenity, communal amenity and open spaces,
including any children's play space (including any equipped play areas
within that phase).
xii. A Secure by Design Statement.
xiii. Details of integrated bat cavity boxes and integrated swift boxes or similar.
xiv. A Soil Resource Management Plan confirming the different soil types;
suggesting the most appropriate re-use and methods for handling, storing
and replacing; and helping to re-use displaced soil resources.
xv. A Building for a Healthy Life Assessment
xvi. 3D Massing and visuals including street scenes for any phase that contains
more than 10 dwellings or more than 1,000 sqm of floorspace. The details
shall include an assessment of landscape and visual impacts including
photographic montages and key views as agreed with the local planning
authority prior to producing them.
xvii. An Active Design Assessment demonstrating how Active Design principles
have been considered.
xviii. A program of continued tree maintenance for the lifetime of the
development, including inspection.
xix. A statement to demonstrate how account has been taken of Design and
Access Statement Rev A and is fully in accord with the Design Code Rev A.
For the avoidance of doubt the details required by this condition shall apply to all
Reserved Matters submissions, including those for Self-Build and Custom Build
phases.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Page 156
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
10)New Mill Link
Any application for a phase of reserved matters consent for more than 10
dwellings or 1,000 sqm of commercial floorspace in relation to ‘land in proximity
to the New Mill Tr02 site’, as identified in the Dacorum Local Plan Emerging
Strategy for Growth (2020 – 2038) shall, in addition to being accompanied by the
matters set out in condition 9, provide details of ‘cycle and pedestrian links’
between that phase and the New Mill Tr02 site. In this condition ‘land in
proximity to the New Mill Tr02 site’ means:
• land that has a contiguous boundary with New Mills Tr02; and
• is within 500 m of that boundary; and
• is within either the Orchard Quarter or Garden Suburb Core Character Areas as
set out in the approved Design Code Rev A.
The details of ‘cycle and pedestrian links’ between the phase of development and
the New Mill Tr02 site shall show the following:
• Provision for footpath and cycle way links designed in accordance with the
Mandatory Design Principles of the Active Travel Network as set out in the
approved Design Code Rev A (page 73);
• Such links provided up to the boundary with the New Mill Tr02 site; and
• The timing of their delivery as part of that phase.
The approved cycle and pedestrian links shall be implemented in accordance with
details approved as part of the relevant reserved matters consent.
Outline Permission Pre-commencement Conditions
11)Phasing Strategy
On or before the submission of the first reserved matters application, a Phasing
Strategy for development of the entire site shall be submitted to the local
planning authority. No development shall commence until the local planning
authority has approved in writing the Phasing Strategy and the approved
development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved
Phasing Strategy. The approved Phasing Strategy shall not be updated or
amended unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
The Phasing Strategy shall demonstrate how development of the entire site shall
be brought forward to secure the following:
1. maximum 1,400 homes, including 140 use class C2 dwellings;
2. 27 ha Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace;
3. Health facilities and Community hall;
4. Two Form Entry Primary School;
5. Serviced Site for Six Form Entry School or alternative school places provision;
6. Outdoor sports Facilities and hub;
Page 157
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
7. Public open spaces;
8. 45% affordable housing;
9. Plots to accommodate 5% custom / self-build housing within phases 2 and 3
of the development;
10. a local centre, including community facilities, retail and business uses; and,
11. a spine road, cycle ways and footpaths.
12)Quality / Design Review Panels
Prior to the submission of any Phase of development containing more than 10
dwellings, a Quality/Design Review Panel (Q/DRP) shall be undertaken.
The Q/DRPs shall include the following themes:
1. Design & Vision for the Village Centre, including a review of the public realm
proposal for the Village Centre Square.
2. Public Realm Framework with a focus on walking, cycling and wider
connections of the site, connections between parcels identified in the
approved phasing and Design Code; and quality of the public realm and
landscape.
3. Architectural Design and Interpretation of the relevant Character Areas,
including house typologies design, elevations, materials, sustainability and
public realm design.
The developer shall invite the local planning authority in writing to attend the
Q/DRPs and subsequently provide a summary report to them. The conclusions of
the Q/DRPs shall be incorporated into the reserved matters application(s), where
appropriate. Detail of the elements included shall be provided to the local
planning authority at the relevant reserved matters stage. Any follow up reviews
shall ensure that recommendations from the Q/DRP have been taken on board.
13)Landscaping - General
Before each Phase of the development commences, excluding the enabling
works, details of a Hard and Soft Landscaping Scheme and maintenance
arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority for that Phase. These details shall include:
i. hard surfacing materials;
ii. means of enclosure;
iii. soft landscape works which shall include planting plans; written specifications
(including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass
establishment);
iv. schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed
numbers/densities where appropriate;
v. biodiversity enhancement measures (with reference to the Biodiversity Net
Gain Management Plan);
Page 158
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
vi. minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, storage units, signs etc.);
vii. proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g.
drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc., indicating lines,
manholes, supports etc.);
viii. play equipment to be included in the Local Areas of Play; Local Equipped
Areas of Play (LEAP) and Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAP) as
appropriate in each relevant Phase;
ix. retained historic landscape features (Iron Age/Romano-British enclosure
identified in aerial and geophysical surveys at Appendix C.1 and C.2 of the
Environmental Statement) and proposals for restoration, where relevant; and
x. a programme of works for that Phase.
Notwithstanding the mandatory street design principles in the Design Code, a
strategic structural landscaping plan for all of those parts of the site identified in
the Design Code Regulatory Plan Fig 6 as being for Residential, Mixed Use,
Secondary and Primary School development, including the Primary Street, as
identified in the Design Code, shall be provided to enable larger, structural
planting in key areas. This detail shall be provided within the relevant
landscaping scheme for each relevant Phase. Specifically the minimum verge
widths for tree planting along the Primary Street shall be a minimum of 4m on
each side and a minimum of 5m from the nearest building to enable larger
structural tree planting. Secondary Streets, as identified in the Design Code,
shall be provided with a tree planted verge of a minimum width of 4m on one side
of the street where there is no on-plot parking provided, or a minimum width of
2.5m where there is on-plot parking provided; and a planted verge of minimum
width of 2.5m on the other. This detail shall be provided within the relevant
landscaping scheme for each relevant Phase. All such verges are to be planted
with trees spaced at 6-8m centres.
The approved landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with an agreed
programme of works. Any tree or shrub which forms part of the approved
landscaping scheme which within a period of five years from planting fails to
become established, becomes seriously damaged or diseased, dies or for any
reason is removed shall be replaced in the next planting season by a tree or
shrub of a species, size and maturity to be approved by the local planning
authority and maintained until satisfactorily established.
14)Sustainability Provision
Each application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by an
Energy and Sustainability Strategy. The details shall incorporate but are not be
limited to:
• passive design measures including the orientation of buildings to optimise
photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, solar gains through dual-aspect and larger
windows and low g-value glazing;
• active design measures to deliver efficiency benefits through building services
specifications, for example, all lighting to be high efficiency LED types,
Page 159
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) systems, heat pump
systems and the use of solar panels; and
• enhanced fabric of buildings to align with the Future Homes Standard. A
Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard shall also be utilised to ensure a minimum
level of building fabric performance across new homes.
In addition to the above, the Energy and Sustainability Strategy shall provide
details of measures to demonstrate and achieve reduced regulated carbon
emissions of 90% against Part L 2021 (Building Regulations) compliance as per
Section 13 of the Environmental Statement by Stantec (referenced
332110605/300.3, dated March 2022).
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Strategies.
15) Fire Hydrants
No development (excluding groundworks) of each Phase shall take place until
details of fire hydrants or other measures to protect the development from fire
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Such details shall include provision of the mains water services for the
development whether by means of existing water services, new mains, or
extension to or diversion of existing services where the provision of fire hydrants
is considered necessary. The proposed Phase of development shall not be
occupied/used until such measures have been implemented in accordance with
the approved details.
16) Landscape concept - Village Centre
Before the Phase comprising the village centre commences, excluding the
Enabling Works, details of a Landscape Concept Plan (LCP) for the village centre
shall be provided to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority.
The LCP shall be in accordance with and the ‘Village Centre Detailed Study Dec
22’ and establish the key principles for the public square, determining the
relationship between the public realm, community space and car parking.
The reserved matters submissions for development within the Phase comprising
the village centre shall be made in accordance with the approved LCP.
17) Canal and Waterway Infrastructure
Prior to the commencement of any development within 500m of the Grand Union
Canal, details of proposed measures to safeguard the waterway infrastructure
and environment during construction and operation of the development shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details
shall include:
• A Grand Union Canal slope stability assessment and a full inspection of the
canal cutting to demonstrate that the development would not result in any
increase in loadings to the cutting slope.
• Details on the drainage proposals including an assessment of impacts to the
Grand Union cutting slope and any adjusted inflows into the Tring reservoirs
from the development.
Page 160
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
• An assessment of the potential impacts on the tow path access points and
canal bridges from increased use.
• Details on the potential increased infiltration rate attributed to the drainage
strategy and related impacts on the stability of the canal cutting slope both in
the short and long term.
• Mitigation measures and future maintenance and management responsibilities
and regimes, where necessary.
The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the
approved details.
18)Contamination - Intrusive Site Investigation
No development (excluding demolition) within any phase shall take place until a
Phase II Report (Intrusive Site Investigation) to assess the actual or potential
contamination of land within that phase has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority.
Where such report identifies any actual or potential contamination and/or ground
gas risks; the Phase II Report will need to establish the relevant remediation or
protection measures necessary for the site and a Remediation Statement shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
For the purposes of this condition:
• A Phase II Report consists of an intrusive site investigation and risk
assessment. The report should make recommendations for further
investigation and assessment where required.
• A Remediation Statement details actions to be carried out and timescales so
that contamination no longer presents a risk to site users, property, the
environment or ecological systems.
19)Site Waste Management Plan and Construction and Environmental Management
Plan.
Prior to the commencement of each Phase of development, as well as the
enabling works, a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) and a Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for that Phase shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The SWMP shall, as a minimum, describe how materials will be managed
efficiently and disposed of during the construction of the works, explaining how
the re-use and recycling of materials will be maximised.
The CEMP shall set out, as a minimum, the proposed demolition, earthworks and
construction methodology. The CEMP shall outline site specific measures to
control and monitor impact arising in relation to construction traffic, noise and
vibration, dust and air pollutants, land contamination, ecology and ground water.
It shall also set out arrangements by which the developer shall maintain
communication with residents and businesses in the vicinity of the site, and by
which the developer shall monitor and document compliance with the measures
set out in the CEMP. In addition to those commitments outlined within the
Page 161
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Stantec Framework Construction Environmental Management Plan (referenced
332110605/300 and dated 6 March 2022), the CEMP shall include a commitment
to require non-road mobile machinery that reasonably minimises air pollution
emissions.
The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
20)Construction Traffic Management Plan – Air Quality and Highways
No development approved in any Phase shall commence until a Construction
Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) that is relevant to the demolition, earthworks
and construction stages for that phase of the proposed development has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In addition
to those commitments outlined in Section 3.10 of the Stantec Framework
Construction Environmental Management Plan (Ref: 332110605/300 6 March
2022), the CTMP shall include a commitment to:
• prevent construction traffic from travelling to or from the development site via
the Northchurch Air Quality Management Area; and
• require EURO VI as the minimum acceptable engine standard for HGV and LGV
contracted to the development.
The CTMP shall also include the following:
i. The construction programme;
ii. Clear access strategy for construction vehicles that avoids conflicts with
pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and existing and future residents;
iii. Hours of operation.
iv. Phasing of the development of the site, including all highway works.
v. Construction vehicle numbers, type and routing.
vi. Traffic management requirements.
vii. Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public highway.
viii. Provision of sufficient on-site parking prior to commencement of
construction activities.
ix. Details of any highway works necessary to enable construction to take
place, including temporary access works.
x. Details of any works to or affecting Public Rights of Way within and in the
vicinity of the site, demonstrating how safe and unobstructed access will
be maintained at all times or be temporarily closed or extinguished.
xi. Details of servicing and delivery, including details of site access,
compound, welfare facilities, hoarding, construction related parking,
loading, unloading, turning areas and materials storage areas.
xii. Where works cannot be wholly contained within the site, a plan should be
submitted showing the site layout on the highway, including extent of
Page 162
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
hoarding, pedestrian routes and remaining road width for vehicle
movements and proposed traffic management.
xiii. Management of construction traffic and deliveries to reduce congestion and
avoid school pick up/drop off times, including numbers, type and routing.
xiv. Control of dust and dirt on the public highway, including details of wheel
washing facilities and cleaning of site entrance adjacent to the public
highway.
xv. Details of public contact arrangements and complaint management.
xvi. Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and
temporary access to the public highway.
xvii. Measures to be implemented to ensure wayfinding for both occupiers of
the site and or those travelling through it.
Thereafter, the construction of that phase of development for which full planning
permission has been granted shall only be carried out in accordance with the
approved CTMP. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Construction
Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS) Standard.
21)Traffic Regulation Order - Prohibition of Vehicles on a Specific Section
No development, excluding demolition, in any phase shall commence until such
time as an order to remove vehicular access rights over the Marshcroft Lane land
as shown on Figure 5.2 (“Marshcroft Lane Proposals”) of the Transport
Assessment (Part 1, Page 35) dated March 2022 has been granted. Thereafter,
all highway rights over the specified section of Marshcroft Lane land shall have
been successfully removed, before the Spine Road is open for use by non-
construction traffic.
22)Archaeological - Written Scheme of Investigation
No development, excluding demolition, shall take place/commence for any phase
until an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation for that phase has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
scheme shall include an assessment of archaeological significance; and:
a) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording.
b) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording as
suggested by the archaeological evaluation.
c) The programme for post investigation assessment.
d) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording.
e) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and
records of the site investigation.
f) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the
site investigation.
g) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the
works set out within the Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.
Page 163
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved
Written Scheme of Investigation.
23)Surface Water Drainage Scheme and Flood Risk
No development in any phase shall take place until the design of the drainage
scheme for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority.
The drainage design for each phase/development area shall include the following:
1. Measures to limit the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 year +
40% climate change event so that it will not exceed the run-off from the
undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. Where an
outfall discharge control device is to be used such as a hydrobrake or twin
orifice, this shall be shown on the plan with the rate of discharge stated.
2. Where infiltration forms part of the proposed system such as infiltration
trenches and soakaways, the provision of soakage test results and test
locations in accordance with BRE digest 365.
3. The provision of storage to ensure no increase in surface water runoff
volumes for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + 40%
climate change event and details as to how this is to be achieved.
4. Details to demonstrate an appropriate SuDS management and treatment
train and inclusion of above ground features reducing the requirement for any
underground storage.
5. Where possible avoiding the location of soakaways that serve multiple
properties in private curtilage.
6. Silt traps for protection for any residual tanked elements.
7. Calculations to demonstrate how the system operates during a 1 in 100 year
+ 40% climate change event including drain down times for all storage
features.
8. Full detailed engineering drawings including cross and long sections, location,
size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet features. This shall be
supported by a clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing pipe networks.
The plan shall show any pipe 'node numbers' that have been referred to in
network calculations and it shall also show invert and cover levels of
manholes.
9. Details regarding any areas of informal flooding (those events exceeding 1 in
30 year rainfall event), this shall be shown on a plan with estimated extents
and depths.
10. Details of final exceedance routes, including those for an event which exceeds
a 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change event.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
The mitigation measures relating to each phase shall be fully implemented prior
to the first occupation of each phase or in accordance with the timing/phasing
arrangements embodied within the scheme.
Page 164
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
24)SuDS Design Strategy
Prior to the implementation of each phase of the drainage scheme approved in
Condition 23, a SuDS Design Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The Strategy shall include details setting
out how the SuDS systems will maintain or improve water quality, permanently
retain water for ecological benefits, maximise biodiversity, deliver a range of
plant species (including native aquatic and riparian plants) and provide
naturalistic designs.
The Strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
25)Lighting
Prior to the commencement of development in any phase hereby permitted, a
‘Lighting Design Strategy’ for that Phase shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The Lighting Design Strategy shall take
account of the Principles of Lighting Design for Bats (Document ID74, paragraphs
12 and 13) and any necessary lighting requirements to secure road adoption or
highway safety. The Strategy shall:
a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and
that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and
resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their
territory, e.g. for foraging;
b) show how and where external lighting will be installed, including street lighting
and floodlighting (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans
and technical specifications), so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas
to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or
having access to their breeding sites and resting places;
c) demonstrate how the proposed lighting will minimise impacts on the landscape
character of the area and the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in
particular, any floodlighting associated with the proposed sports and
community facilities shall be sensitively designed; and
d) set out the proposed hours that the Multi-Use Games Area floodlighting can be
used.
All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and
locations set out in the Strategy, and these shall be retained thereafter in
accordance with the Strategy
Outline Permission Prior to Occupation Conditions
26)Landscape and Public Realm Management and Maintenance
Prior to the first occupation of any Phase of development a Public Realm,
Landscape Management and Maintenance Scheme (PRLMMS) for that phase
setting out how the hard and soft landscaped areas identified in the approved
Hard and Soft Landscaping Scheme (approved pursuant to that Reserved Matter)
are to be maintained and managed in relation to the relevant Phase has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Page 165
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
The relevant PRLMMS shall include details of the proposed quantum of area;
location; long-term design objectives; management responsibilities and
maintenance schedules for all approved landscape areas for the relevant Phase.
The PRLMMS shall also identify the administrative and funding structure through
which the relevant landscaped areas are to be maintained.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved PRLMMS
27) Visibility Splays
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, visibility splays
shall be provided in full accordance with the details indicated on the approved
drawings set out in Condition 2. The splays shall thereafter be retained at all
times free from any obstruction between 600mm and 2m above the level of the
adjacent highway carriageway.
28) Maintenance of Streets
Prior to the occupation/first use of each Phase of development hereby approved,
full details of the proposed arrangements for future management and
maintenance of the proposed streets within that Phase shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Following the provision of
such streets, the streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the
approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement
has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a Private
Management and Maintenance Company has been established in accordance with
the approved details.
29) Public Transport Infrastructure
Prior to the occupation/first use of any Phase of the development, details of the
public transport infrastructure relevant to that phase shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. This infrastructure shall
comprise of but is not limited to the following:
1. Details of bus stop facilities to include raised height kerbs and shelters and
real-time information signs, where agreed;
2. bus priority measures where appropriate within the Central Spine Road;
3. details of any necessary bus-only section and bus gate operation; and
4. a programme for the delivery of the public transport infrastructure.
The public transport infrastructure required to serve a particular Phase shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved programme for delivery for that
Phase.
The future locations of all bus stops serving that Phase shall be determined prior
to the occupation of any buildings within that Phase and be clearly marked on
site during construction of the internal roads to ensure visibility for prospective
purchasers and users.
Page 166
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
30)Electric vehicle parking provision – electricity supply
Prior to the occupation of any dwelling with in-curtilage car parking (or allocated
offplot parking), each dwelling shall incorporate sufficient capacity (including any
necessary trunking/ducting) within the electricity distribution board for one
dedicated radial AC single phase connection (minimum 32A) for electric vehicle
charging.
31)Electric vehicle charging facilities
No development shall commence in any phase (as defined in the Phasing
Strategy approved pursuant to Condition 11) until a scheme for the provision of
electric vehicle charging facilities for non-allocated parking, shared off- plot
parking, non-residential and commercial parking within that phase has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The scheme shall include the location, specification and timescales for installation
of all active electric vehicle charging facilities and provide details of the passive
provision proposed across the phase. Charging points shall be located in
prominent positions and shall be for the exclusive use of electric vehicles. Where
additional parking bays are identified for the future installation of electric vehicle
charging points (passive provision) they shall be provided with all necessary
ducting, cabling and groundworks.
The scheme shall include a Management Plan detailing the management,
maintenance, servicing and access/charging arrangements for each electric
vehicle charging point for a minimum period of 10 years. The scheme shall be
implemented as approved.
32)Archaeology - Site Investigation and Post Investigation
The development within any phase shall not be occupied until the site
investigation and post investigation assessment for that phase has been
completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of
Investigation approved under Condition 22 and the provision made for analysis,
publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
Outline Permission Compliance Conditions
33)Limit on use of Render
Notwithstanding the details within the Design Code, use of render shall be limited
to three of the character areas, of those shown in the Approved Design Code, or
two if the ‘Garden Suburb Core’ is included.
34)SuDS Management and Maintenance
Upon completion of the drainage works for any phase, a management and
maintenance scheme for the SuDS features and drainage network within that
phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The scheme shall include:
1. Provision of complete set of as built drawings for site drainage.
2. Maintenance and operational activities.
Page 167
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
3. Arrangements for adoption or management by another body and any other
measures to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
35)Contamination Site - Completion Report
All remediation or protection measures identified in the Remediation Statement
referred to in Condition 18 shall be fully implemented within the timescales and
by the deadlines as set out in the Remediation Statement. No part of the
development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Site Completion Report
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
For the purposes of this condition: a Site Completion Report shall record all the
investigation and remedial or protection actions carried out. It shall detail all
conclusions and actions taken at each stage of the works including validation
work. It shall contain quality assurance and validation results providing evidence
that the site has been remediated to a standard suitable for the approved use.
Page 168
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
APPENDIX D: ABBREVIATIONS & GLOSSARY
ALC Agricultural Land Classification
AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
BBOWT Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust
BMV Best and Most Versatile (agricultural land)
BNG Biodiversity Net Gain
CA Conservation Area
CCB Chilterns Conservation Board
CIL Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations
CMC Case Management Conference
COG Combined Objectors’ Group
(the) Council Dacorum Borough Council
CPRE Campaign for the Protection of Rural England
CPS Centre for Policy Studies
CROW Act 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
CS Dacorum Core Strategy 2006–2031 (adopted September 2013)
2020 DAF 2020 Custom and Self-Build Demand Assessment Framework
DAS Design & Access Statement
DLP Dacorum Local Plan 1991–2011 (adopted 21 April 2004)
Emerging DLP Emerging Dacorum Local Plan (2020-2038)
DP Development Plan
dpa dwellings per annum
DPD Development Plan Document
DSSDG Dacorum Strategic Sites Design Guide
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ES Environmental Statement
FHS Future Homes and Buildings Standards
(the) Framework (the) National Planning Policy Framework
FTE (jobs) Full Time Equivalent (jobs)
GFRA Grove Fields Residents Association
Page 169
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
GLIVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Third
Edition
ha hectares
HCC Hertfordshire County Council
HIA Health Impact Assessment
HLS Housing Land Supply
km Kilometre
LBMS Landscape and Biodiversity Management Strategy
LCA Local Character Area
LDS Local Development Scheme
LEP Local Enterprise Partnership
LHA Local Highway Authority
LHN Local Housing Need
LHNA 2020 2020 Local Housing Needs Assessment
LPA(s) Local Planning Authority(ies)
LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
m metres
mph miles per hour
MUGA Multi-Use Games Area
NCA National Character Area
NERC Act 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
NHS National Health Service
OAN objectively assessed need
PCPA 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
PPG Planning Practice Guidance
PIM Pre-Inquiry Meeting
PRoW(s) Public Right(s) of Way
RSL Registered Social Landlord
SAC Special Area of Conservation
SAMM Strategic Access Management and Monitoring
SANG Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space
Page 170
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Section 73 Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Section 106 Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
SoCG Statement of Common Ground
SofS Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
SPD Supplementary Planning Document
SSSI(s) Site(s) of Special Scientific Interest
Stantec Stantec UK Limited
SuDS Sustainable Drainage System
TA Transport Assessment
TRICS Trip Rate Information Computer System
UU Unilateral Undertaking
VSC Very Special Circumstances
WMT West Midlands Trains
Page 171
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
ADDENDUM REPORT: INFORMATION TO INFORM THE SECRETARY OF
STATE’S HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT
Introduction
1. The proposed development would comprise up to 1,400 dwellings
including affordable, elderly persons’ accommodation, First Homes and
self/custom-build. It would also include new vehicular and
pedestrian/cycle routes, a local centre with health, community and
workspaces, a sports/community hub, allotments and orchards, a primary
school and land for a potential secondary school and areas of open space
and Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG).
2. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)
and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations
2017 (as amended) (for plans and projects beyond UK territorial waters
(12 nautical miles)) require that where a plan or project is likely to have a
significant effect on a European site or European marine site either alone
or in combination with other plans or projects, and where the plan or
project is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of
the European site, a competent authority (the Secretary of State in this
instance) is required to make an Appropriate Assessment of the
implications of that plan or project on the integrity of the European site in
view of the site’s conservation objectives.
Project Location
3. The proposed development site is located between Bulbourne Road and
Station Road, Tring. Chilterns Beechwoods SAC is located approximately
2km to the east of the site at its closest point, which at that location is
underpinned by Ashridge Commons and Woods SSSI. The SAC is also
underpinned by Tring Woodlands SSSI, approximately 2.3km to the
southwest of the site at its closest point.
4. Ashridge Commons and Woods SSSI is separated from the site by the
Grand Union Canal, the mainline railway and open countryside. It is
owned and managed by the National Trust. Tring Woodlands SSSI is
approximately 3.5km from the site (the boundary at the end of Marshcroft
Lane) by road, to Harston Lane.
5. The SAC is distributed over a large geographical area, being underpinned
in other locations by Aston Rowant Woods SSSI, Bisham Woods SSSI,
Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and The Coppice SSSI, Ellesborough and
Kimble Warrens SSSI, Hollowhill and Pullingshill Woods SSSI, Naphill
Common SSSI and Windsor Hill SSSI, all of which are well removed from
the site and not considered in this assessment.
6. The qualifying features for Chilterns Beechwoods SAC are defined by
Natural England as being semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland
facies; dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone; Beech forests
on neutral to rich soils; and the presence of the Stag Beetle.
7. Tring Woodlands SSSI is designated for its semi-natural Beech woodland,
one of the best examples in Hertfordshire. It does not have additional
SSSI-qualifying features not covered in the SAC designation, and there
are no parts of the SSSI that are not also designated SAC. Ashridge
Commons and Woods SSSI is designated for its mosaic of habitats,
including a mixture of ancient semi-natural and secondary woodland,
plantation, scrub, a more open component dominated by bracken, and
grassland. The site supports an exceptionally rich breeding bird
community including both county and national rarities. There are no parts
of the SSSI not also designated as SAC. The protected species (Stag
Beetle) is unlikely to be present in either of the Tring Woodlands SSSI or
the Ashridge Commons and Woods SSSI.
HRA Implications of the Project
8. The proposed development will generate additional degradation and air
quality impacts that have the potential to affect the Ashridge Commons
and Woods SSSI and Tring Woodlands SSSI sites and the semi-natural
Beech woodland, dry grasslands and scrubland qualifying features of the
sites. The impact pathways are physical damage and disturbance arising
from an increase in recreational pressure from new residents; and air
quality impacts arising from an increase in traffic movements on the SAC.
Part 1 - Assessment of Likely Significant Effects
9. In terms of air quality, in general, deposition at 200m or above from a
road is at a level so small to be considered insignificant. As such, only
Tom’s Hill Road and the B4506 have been assessed, which lie within 200m
of Ashridge Commons and Woods SSSI. Overall, the assessment
concludes that, with regards to nitrogen dioxide (Nox), ammonia (NH3),
nitrogen deposition and acid deposition, the proposed development is
considered to result in non-significant effects at Ashridge Commons and
Woods SSSI when considered alone or with other plans and projects.
Whilst no air quality assessment has been undertaken for the A41 which
lies within 200m of Tring Woodlands SSSI, Natural England have
confirmed that due to the siting of Tring Woodlands between the junctions
of the A41, traffic generated to serve the development is unlikely to give
rise to significant effects.
10. In terms of physical damage and degradation to habitats, an increase in
recreational pressure on a wildlife site has the potential to cause the
degradation of its qualifying habitat features including direct damage to
habitat features through walking and other activities, leading to soil
compaction, erosion, trampling of vegetation and damage to veteran tree
roots. Increased recreational pressure may also result in nutrient
enrichment of habitats (e.g. as a result of dog fouling), fly-tipping /
littering and increased fire risk. In all but the case of fires, these potential
pathways for impacts are directly related to the frequency of visits and
management of visitors on site.
11. In order to have an effect in terms of potential damage and degradation
of the habitats for which the SAC designated, any walk would necessarily
need to extend into the site. This would mean the only section of walk
that could feasibly result in damage would be that situated beyond 5.6km
(Tring Woodlands SSSI) and beyond 5.2km (Ashridge Commons and
Woods SSSI) respectively. I consider that it is unlikely that new residents
of the proposed development would access the SAC on foot, either
regularly or on an occasional basis, such that any measurable effect from
physical degradation and damage to habitats could arise. However,
residents at the site could drive or use other means of transport to access
open space in the local area for informal recreation, including the SAC,
which could lead to potential habitat damage and disturbance.
12. In conclusion, with regard to physical damage and degradation, the
proposed development proposal would be likely to lead to a significant
effect when considered alone, which would also contribute towards a
significant effect on the SAC via potential physical damage and
degradation, when considered in combination with other plans and
projects.
Part 2 - Findings in relation to Adverse Effects on the Integrity
13. To address the potential for the development proposal to contribute
towards adverse effects from an increase in recreational pressure at the
SAC (when considered both alone and in combination with other plans and
projects), a package of site-specific avoidance and mitigation measures
would be delivered as part of the proposed development. These measures
include a large area of proposed Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space
(SANG) in the east of the site, which would be greater than the area that
would be required in Natural England’s guidelines for the proposed
number of residents. Its role would be to provide alternative green space
to divert visitors from visiting protected areas such as the SAC as
frequently through provision of enhanced green space choice.
14. A strategic approach to deal with the Strategic Access Management and
Monitoring (SAMM) has been agreed with Natural England, the National
Trust and Dacorum Borough Council. A Section 106 Obligation would
secure the required financial contributions. Natural England is satisfied
with this approach and the SANG design. It has withdrawn its initial
objections and is satisfied that the Land Trust would be a suitable party to
take responsibility for future SANG management.
15. Based on the above, I consider that the potential effects identified in
relation to the development proposal will be avoided or fully mitigated
through the implementation of the measures described above, such that
there would be no significant residual adverse effects on the SAC (or
component SSSIs) when the project is considered alone.
HRA Conclusions
16. In accordance with paragraph 182 of the Framework, I conclude that the
proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the
designated habitats sites alone or in combination with other plans or
projects and I consider it to be acceptable under the tests of the Habitats
Regulations.
17. These conclusions represent my assessment of the evidence presented to
me but do not represent an appropriate assessment as this is a matter for
the SoS to undertake as the Competent Authority.
M J Whitehead
INSPECTOR
6 November 2023
www.gov.uk/dluhc
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the
legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or
making an application for Judicial Review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or
contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division,
Strand,London,WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of
State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only
if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow
that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The decision may be challenged by making an application for permission to the High Court
under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act
With the permission of the High Court under section 288 of the TCP Act, decisions on called-in
applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may
be challenged. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on
the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have
not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application for leave under this section must
be made within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
Challenges under Section 289 of the TCP Act
Decisions on recovered enforcement appeals under all grounds can be challenged under section 289
of the TCP Act. To challenge the enforcement decision, permission must first be obtained from the
Court. If the Court does not consider that there is an arguable case, it may refuse permission.
Application for leave to make a challenge must be received by the Administrative Court within 28 days
of the decision, unless the Court extends this period.
SECTION 3: AWARDS OF COSTS
A challenge to the decision on an application for an award of costs which is connected with a
decision under section 77 or 78 of the TCP Act can be made under section 288 of the TCP Act if
permission of the High Court is granted.
SECTION 4: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision
has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the
Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the day after the date of the decision. If
you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at
the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter,
quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice
should be given, if possible.