Planning appeal decision
Land North of Sky Studios Elstree, Rowley Lane, Borehamwood, WD6 1FX
development of a film and television production studio (use Class E(g)(ii)) with ancillary floorspace, backlot, new access arrangements, car parking, landscaping, infrastructure and associated works
- Authority
- Hertsmere Borough Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- employment-industrial · Major general industry/storage/warehousing
- Inspector
- Gilbert-Wooldridge T
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to paragraph 155 of the NPPF and any relevant development plan policies
- The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt
- The need for the development, the benefits of co-location, and the availability of alternative sites
- 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 proposal
What decided it
The finding that the development would in practice be brought forward as an extension to Sky Studios Elstree, meeting a demonstrable unmet need under NPPF paragraph 155(b), meaning the proposal was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the very substantial economic benefits were not outweighed by the identified landscape and tree harm.
Very substantial weight to economic benefits, substantial weight to meeting unmet need and to socio-economic benefits, significant weight to sustainability benefits and moderate weight to BNG were found to outweigh the significant weight given to harm to landscape character and moderate weight given to harm to trees, with the proposal also found to accord with the development plan overall, indicating permission should be granted.
Framework references: 16, 49, 57, 58, 85, 86, 87, 110, 115, 142, 143, 152, 153, 154, 155
Plan policies cited: Policy SP1, Policy CS8, Policy CS11, Policy CS12, Policy CS13, Policy CS17, Policy CS26, Policy CS30, Policy SADM10, Policy SADM12, Policy SADM26, Policy SADM30
Judgments cited: I'm Your Man Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1998] 4 PLR 107; Scottish Widows v Cherwell DC [2013] EWHC 3968 (Admin); R (Cherkley Campaign) v Mole Valley DC [2014] EWCA Civ 567; London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin); BDW Trading Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 493; Lambeth LBC v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] 1 W.L.R. 4317; Barton Park Estates Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2022] P.T.S.R. 1699; R. (on the application of Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2022] P.T.S.R. 74; Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1986) 53 P & CR 293; Aldergate Properties Ltd v Mansfield DC [2016] EWHC 1670 (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.
®