Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed25 January 20223278097

Land at Former Hatfield Aerodrome, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL4 0HP

the establishment of a new quarry on land at the former Hatfield Aerodrome, including new access to the A1057, aggregate processing plant, concrete batching plant and other ancillary facilities, together with the importation of inert fill material to restore the mineral workings

Authority
Hertfordshire County Council
Appeal type
other · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
minerals-waste · Mineral working
Inspector
Woolcock J

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the development conflicts with policy to protect the Green Belt and the effects of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt and upon the purposes of including land within it.
  • The effects of the proposed development on hydrogeology and bromate contamination of groundwater.
  • The effects of the proposed development on the local amenity of the area and the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to dust, air quality and health, and noise and disturbance.
  • The effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including cumulative effects.
  • Whether the effects of the proposed development on highway safety, flood risk, Public Rights of Way (PRoW), biodiversity, heritage assets or other matters weigh in the planning balance.
  • The need for sand and gravel, having regard to likely future demand for, and supply of, these minerals, along with the effects of the proposed development on employment and the economy.
  • If the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt, 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.

What decided it

The harm by reason of inappropriateness in the Green Belt, together with other identified harms, was not clearly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme, so the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development did not exist.

the substantial harm to the Green Belt, together with harm to character, appearance and amenity, harm to the listed building's setting, and harm to pedestrian safety, was not clearly outweighed by the great-weight benefits of aggregate supply, economic/employment contribution, biodiversity net gain and PRoW improvements, so very special circumstances were not established

Framework references: 145, 150, 188, 202, 55

Plan policies cited: MLP Policy 1, MLP Policy 2, MLP Policy 3, MLP Policy 4, MLP Policy 7, MLP Policy 9, MLP Policy 11, MLP Policy 12, MLP Policy 13, MLP Policy 14, MLP Policy 15, MLP Policy 16

Judgments cited: Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SoSE (1982) 43 P.&C.R. 233; R (Holborn Studios Ltd) v LB Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin); R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.