®Planning appeal decision
Northaw House, Coopers Lane, Northaw, POTTERS BAR, Hertfordshire, EN6 4NG
Repair, refurbishment and conversion of Northaw House to form 11 apartments (including refurbishment of existing single caretaker’s flat) and underground parking area, the Ballroom Wing to form 2 dwellings, the Stable Block to form 1 dwelling, refurbishment of existing dwelling at Oak Cottage, construction of 2 new Gate Lodge dwellings, 4 new dwellings on the East Drive, 3 new dwellings within the Walled Garden, 7 new dwellings within the Settlement Area, refurbishment of the Walled Garden, refurbishment of access routes and reinstatement of old route, provision of hard and soft landscaping, car parking and supporting infrastructure
- Authority
- Welwyn Hatfield Council
- Appeal type
- other · Listed Building Consent & Conservation Area Consent Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Edginton A
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.
Framework references: 148, 149, 150, 138, 199, 200, 202, 208, 65, 11
Plan policies cited: Policy SADM34, Policy SADM15, Policy RA10, Policy D2, Policy RA2, Policy H2, Policy SP7
Judgments cited: Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, R (on the application of) V Epping Forest District Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 404
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.