Yard at The Spinney, 22 Hendon Wood Lane, London, NW7 4HR

Planning appeal 3330636 at Yard at The Spinney, 22 Hendon Wood Lane, London, NW7 4HR (London Borough of Barnet) was dismissed on 24 January 2025 by Inspector Moore D, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) and relevant development plan policies.

Material change of use of land to a waste/recycling transfer and sorting yard, erection of a structure, and permanent stationing of a shipping container incidental to the change of use

Authority: London Borough of Barnet
Appeal type: enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure: Written Representations
Development: minerals-waste · Change of use
Inspector: Moore D
Postcode: NW7 4HR

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

Whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) and relevant development plan policies
The effect on the openness of the Green Belt
The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
The effect of the development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance
Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development

What decided it

The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt with substantial harm from inappropriateness, combined with moderate harm to openness and living conditions and limited harm to character and appearance, which is not clearly outweighed by other considerations, so very special circumstances do not exist.

The substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, combined with moderate harm to openness and living conditions and limited harm to character and appearance, was not clearly outweighed by the limited weight afforded to the fallback position, personal hardship, economic benefits, and waste recycling sustainability considerations.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies: Policy DM15Policy DM04Policy 5 of the North London Waste Plan (2022)Policy DM01Policy CS5
National Planning Policy Framework: Paragraph 155
Judgments: R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning [1985] QB 839; Britannia Assets (UK) Ltd v SSCLG [2011] EWHC 1980 (Admin); Beg & Others v Luton BC [2017] EWHC 3435 (Admin); Nelsovil v MHLG [1962] 1 WLR 404; Jenkins v SSECLG [1998] EWHC Admin 239; Russells Hall Hospital v SSCLG [2012] EWHC 1448 (Admin); Newark and Sherwood DC v SSE & Dover DC [1996] 72 P and CR 101; Hallam Land Management Ltd v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 1808; Fox Brothers v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 542; R (Cotswold DC) v SSGLG [2015] EWHC 1943; Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin's Iron and Steel Co Ltd [1949] 1QB 385; Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR (No.2) [2000] 2 PLR 102; Murfitt v SSE [1980] JPL 598; Somak Travel v SSE [1987] JPL 630; Kestrel Hydro v SSCLG & Spelthorne BC [2016] EWCA Civ 784; Turner v SSCLG & East Dorset Council [2016] EWCA Civ 466; R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) (Respondents) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC; Europa Oil and Gas Ltd v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 2643 (Admin); Mansi v Elstree RDC [1963] 16 P&CR 153; Midtown v City of London Corporation [2005] EWHC 1398 (Admin); Hartley v SoS [1997] 2 PLR 72; Kingsgate v Camden [1998] PLCR 80; Palmer v Herefordshire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1061; R v Wicks [1998] PLCR 500; Lambeth LBC v SoS [2002] EWHC 1216 (Admin)

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

197 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision

An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter — Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.

Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app — Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.

Start your free trial

More decisions in London Borough of Barnet

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025

Notice varied and upheld29 September 20263359644
35 Hillview Gardens, London, NW4 2JJ
Notice upheld28 August 20263361601
53 Essex Park, London, N3 1ND
Notice varied and upheld27 August 20263361348
27 Dale Grove, London, N12 8EE
Notice upheld26 August 20263376088
48 Oldberry Road, Edgware, HA8 9DB
Notice upheld18 August 20263337532
140A Sydney Road, London, N10 2RN

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.