®Planning appeal decision
Parcel Of Land North Of Mansion House Farm, Bedmond Road, Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire, WD5 0QE
demolition and clearance of existing buildings and hardstandings to allow for the construction of a data centre of up to 84,000 sqm (GEA) delivered across 2no. buildings, engineering operations and earthworks to create development platforms, site wide landscaping and the creation of a country park. The data centre buildings include ancillary offices, internal plant and equipment and emergency back-up generators. Other works include an ancillary innovation, education and training centre of up to 300 sqm, internal roads and footpaths, cycle and car parking, hard and soft landscaping, security perimeter fence, lighting, drainage, substation, and other associated works and infrastructure”. Summary of Recommendation: That planning permission for the development be granted subject to conditions
- Authority
- Three Rivers District Council
- Appeal type
- other · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- employment-industrial · Unknown
- Inspector
- Hatfield T
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- Whether any harm arising from the proposal would be outweighed by other considerations so as to justify the development
What decided it
The classification of Parcel 1 as grey belt land (not strongly contributing to Green Belt purposes a, b or d) meant the development was not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and the substantial benefits of meeting an identified and pressing need for data centre capacity, combined with a lack of suitable alternative sites, were found to outweigh the identified landscape and heritage harms.
The significant weight attached to data centre need, lack of alternative sites, scale of investment/economic benefits and the country park outweighed the significant landscape and visual harm, great weight given to heritage harm, and limited harm from loss of arable land, tipping the balance in favour of allowing the appeal.
Framework references: 49, 50, 57, 58, 85, 86, 87, 110, 115, 143, 151, 153, 154, 155, 174, 180, 187, 212, 215
Plan policies cited: Policy CP1, Policy CP6, Policy CP8, Policy CP9, Policy CP10, Policy CP11, Policy CP12, Policy PSP2, Policy DM2, Policy DM3, Policy DM7
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.