Northaw House, Coopers Lane, Northaw, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 4NG

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• Whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies (Appeal A)
• The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt (Appeal A)
• Whether the development and works would preserve the Grade II listed Northaw House (the House) and Stable Block, and other curtilage buildings, or any features of special architectural and/or historic character that they possess, including setting, and the effects of the proposals on the Northaw Conservation Area (NCA), (Appeals A and B)
• Whether the amount and type of proposed enabling development is justified having regard to the needs of the House, the Stable Block and any other curtilage listed buildings (Appeals A and B)
• Whether the development and works would provide a sustainable form of development in relation to financial contributions to support local infrastructure and services (Appeal A)
• Would the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal (Appeal A)

What decided it

The substantial harm to the Green Belt from inappropriate development and loss of openness, combined with a very high magnitude of less-than-substantial heritage harm, was not outweighed by the limited benefits of six additional dwellings, and the appellants failed to demonstrate that further enabling development was actually necessary.

The minor benefits of six additional market dwellings (housing supply, short-term economic benefit, some landscaping) did not outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt from inappropriateness and loss of openness, nor the very substantial weight of less-than-substantial harm to the heritage assets and their settings, so no very special circumstances existed and the public benefits were insufficient to outweigh the heritage harm.