Planning permission was refused by Dacorum Borough Council on 10 October 2022 for nine reasons: by the time the inquiry commenced, many of these had been resolved through the negotiation of a s.106 agreement. The main outstanding reason for refusal was the harm caused to the Green Belt by the proposed development and the lack of very special circumstances demonstrated to justify the proposed inappropriate development.  

The appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State and determined following a five-week inquiry. 

The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector’s findings on the main issues, including Housing Land Supply, Green Belt, character and appearance of the surrounding area (including the setting of the Chilterns AONB – now National Landscape), loss of agricultural land and heritage. In particular, he agreed that the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, loss of openness and harm to the purposes of checking the sprawl of built-up areas and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, carried substantial weight. He also agreed with the Inspector that the proposal would fail to comply with adopted development plan policies on character and appearance due to the harm to the character of Tring’s surrounding countryside and the setting of the AONB. He attributed significant weight to the loss of agricultural land. 

The Secretary of State also generally agreed with the weight given to the benefits of the proposed development by the Inspector, including the substantial weight to be given to the provision of various forms of housing due to the lack of a five-year housing land supply in Dacorum, which was a factor which weighed substantially in favour of the proposal.

However, the Secretary of State disagreed with the Inspector on the question of whether very special circumstances existed, finding that other considerations in the case did not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other identified harms.

The Secretary of State therefore concluded that the tilted balance did not apply, due to the existence of a “clear” reason for refusing the development proposed (para.11(d)(i) NPPF) and that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Overall, applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the conflict with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicated that permission should be refused.

Of wider interest are the Secretary of State’s findings on the approach to the emerging development plan, which included the development site as an allocation, and had been “paused” by members of Dacorum Borough Council at the time of the inquiry. While the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the Council’s repeated failure to progress an up-to-date development plan that would meet its future housing need and ensure the provision of sufficient sites was an important matter, he did not consider that failure and or proposed release of the site from the Green Belt in the emerging plan merited separate or additional weight. Those matters had already been taken into account in the consideration of the weight to be given to the provision of housing and in the application of the tilted balance.

A copy of the combined decision letter and Inspector’s report can be found here.

Simon Bird KC and Esther Drabkin-Reiter appeared for Dacorum Borough Council.