®Planning appeal decision
Land west of Leighton Buzzard Road, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 3LP
the erection of up to 390 dwellings (C3 Use), including up to 50% affordable housing and 5% self-build, a residential care home for up to 70-beds (C2 use), along with associated landscaping and open space with access from Leighton Buzzard Road
- Authority
- Dacorum Borough Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Dillon C
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect on landscape character and appearance, including the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Chilterns National Landscape
- the effect on the ecological interests within the appeal site, neighbouring land and the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation
- whether the appeal site is a justified and suitable location for residential development, having regard to flood risk, the sequential test and mitigation
- whether the appeal proposal would secure accessibility by a choice of sustainable modes and highway safety
- whether or not adequate provision of community infrastructure would be secured to meet the requirements of the future residents of the appeal proposal
- the effect of the proposed development on the significance of Gadebridge Roman Villa Scheduled Monument (List Entry No 1015577); nearby Listed Buildings; and the Piccotts End Conservation Area, with particular regard to their respective settings
- whether the appeal proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, with particular regard to whether it meets both the definition of 'Grey Belt' land and the 'Golden Rules' set out in national policy, so as not to require very special circumstances to be demonstrated
What decided it
The substantial and significant benefits of housing delivery (including affordable housing, care home and self-build provision), economic benefits and biodiversity net gain outweighed the very low level of less-than-substantial heritage harm, minor landscape harm and other limited harms, engaging and satisfying the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The adverse impacts (very low level heritage harm to the Scheduled Monument, listed buildings and Conservation Area, minor landscape harm, and low-level flood risk/BMV harm) did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial benefits of housing, affordable housing, care home and self-build provision, economic benefits and biodiversity net gain, so the presumption in favour of sustainable development was engaged and the conflict with the development plan was outweighed.
Framework references: 11, 66, 84, 91, 110, 115, 129, 135, 139, 143, 155, 156, 157, 158, 187, 212, 215
Plan policies cited: Policy CS25, Policy CS24, Policy 97, Policy CS26, Policy NP1, Policy CS10, Policy CS29, Policy 99, Policy 103, Policy 102, Policy 124, Policy 51, Policy 54, Policy CS8, Policy 12, Policy 13, Policy 76, Policy CS23, Policy CS35, Policy 118, Policy 119, Policy 120, Policy CS27, Policy CS5
Judgments cited: R (Mead Realisations Ltd. & Redrow Homes Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] EWHC 279 (Admin)
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.