- Decision
- dismissed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: D Ellis
- Authority
- East Hertfordshire (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6006224
- Application reference
- 3/25/1052/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for 1 to 4 dwellings on undeveloped land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware
- Homes
- 4
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside, rural lane, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Housing land supply
- 3.4 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- East Herts District Plan 2018 GBR1, DPS2, TRA1, HA1, HA7
- Main issues
- grey belt; sustainable location; openness; setting of listed buildings; VSC balance
Summary
Permission in principle for up to four homes on open land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware. Grey belt and unmet need (3.4 to 3.7 years' supply) were accepted, but limb (iii) failed. The site is 0.72 km and 1.15 km from the edges of the two towns, with services further on, reached along a mostly single-track, unlit lane with no pavement. A Connectivity Tool score of 49, in the 90th percentile for its rural class, did not rescue it. As inappropriate development causing openness harm, substantial weight to housing did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The 2026 Framework "is effect from the day of publication. The appellant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶2).
- Grey belt, (g)(i) and (g)(ii): PASS (DL ¶9).
- Connectivity Tool. "The score is a relative measure which shows how places compare to other places rather than whether its connectivity is “good” or “bad” in isolation" (DL ¶11). "whether or not a development proposal would be in a sustainable location is a matter of planning judgement and the Connectivity Tool only forms part of this assessment" (DL ¶11).
- Route. "these distances are to the edge of these settlements and the distance to key services, facilities and public transport would be significantly further" (DL ¶13). The route "would mostly consist of a single-track road with no street lighting or pavement which would make it unattractive as a walking, wheeling or cycling route, particularly after dark" (DL ¶13).
- Significant movement in context. "Given the modest number of dwellings in the vicinity of the appeal site, the proposal for up to four new dwellings could generate a significant increase in vehicle movements compared to the existing context" (DL ¶14).
- TR3 / GB7(1)(g)(iii): FAIL. "notwithstanding the connectivity score, I am not persuaded that the site is well connected to the services, facilities and public transport that are provided within the nearby settlements ... even if electric charging points and cycle storage were provided" (DL ¶17). "As the proposal would not be in a sustainable location, the proposal would fail to accord paragraph 1.g. of Policy GB7 of the Framework" (DL ¶18).
- Plan weight: Annex A ¶2 applied. "paragraph 2 of Annex A of the Framework states that development plan policies should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework. I therefore attach great weight to the conflict with EHDP policies in these matters" (DL ¶19).
- Openness: HARM (DL ¶21).
- Heritage: NO HARM FOUND at PIP stage. "given the lack of these details at this stage, including the exact number of dwellings to be built, I am unable to conclude that the proposal would harm the setting of the listed buildings" (DL ¶26).
- S5(5). S5 "does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt" (DL ¶29).
Planning balance
GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to inappropriateness and openness harm, plus great weight to the plan conflict. Housing, economic and social benefits and BNG together attract substantial weight, but "would not attract sufficient weight to clearly outweigh the totality of the harm" (DL ¶33).
What made the difference
The route. The site is close to two towns on a straight-line basis, and the Connectivity Tool ranks it well for a rural hamlet, but the walk and cycle ride are along a single-track unlit lane with no pavement, and the distances are to the town edges, not to services. The inspector treated the tool's relative score as one input and the route quality as decisive. A continuous lit footway or a designated cycle route would have been needed to pass limb (iii).
Transferable points
- A Connectivity Tool score that is high within its rural class does not show a sustainable location. The score is relative, and TR3 is a planning judgement on the actual route (DL ¶11, ¶17).
- Distances measured to a settlement edge understate the trip. What matters is the distance to services, facilities and public transport (DL ¶13).
- Four dwellings can be "significant" movement under TR3(1)(a) where there are few homes nearby (DL ¶14).
- EV charging points and cycle storage do not make an inaccessible site sustainable (DL ¶17).
- Annex A ¶2: older plan policies that are consistent with the Framework keep full weight; here great weight to the location and Green Belt conflict (DL ¶19).
- At PIP stage, setting harm to listed buildings may be impossible to establish without siting details, so it is left to technical details consent (DL ¶26).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | accepted by the Council; no contribution to purposes (a), (b) or (d) (DL 9) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 9) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | no five-year supply, so evidenced unmet need (DL 9) | |
| TR3 | fail | 0.72 km to the edge of Hertford and 1.15 km to Ware, services further; mostly single-track road with no lighting or pavement; Connectivity Tool 49 (90th percentile for "Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings") outweighed by route quality; EV charging and cycle storage do not cure (DL 10-17) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | fail | not a sustainable location, so the (g) exception fails and the scheme is inappropriate (DL 18) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | great | EHDP policies "largely consistent with the Framework"; Annex A paragraph 2 quoted; great weight to conflict with DPS2, TRA1 and GBR1 (DL 19) |
| GB6(2) | fail | substantial | inappropriate development plus spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown (DL 21, 33) |
| HE6 | neutral | three Grade II buildings at Ware Park, locally listed deer park and Grade II Holy Trinity spire; harm cannot be concluded at PIP stage without siting details (DL 26-27) | |
| S5(5) | not-engaged | S5 does not apply in the Green Belt; decided under GB6/GB7 (DL 29) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | up to four homes, "modest but meaningful" contribution; with economic, social and BNG benefits, substantial weight collectively (DL 30, 32) |
Key facts
- Appellant's supply figure 3.4 to 3.7 years, not disputed by the Council (DL 30)
- Connectivity Tool score 49; rural-urban class "Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings", so 90th percentile within class (DL 11)
- Route to Hertford and Ware mostly single-track, unlit, no pavement; no designated cycle route nearby (DL 13, 15)
- Over Alderley (APP/R0660/W/24/3354674) and Hilltop Country House, Butley Town (6002211) comparators distinguished on route quality (DL 15-16)
- Letter refers to "the proposed extensions" in the VSC conclusion (DL 33), a slip for dwellings
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.