Land at Netteswell, The Crescent, Watford (two one-bedroom houses)

Decision

dismissed, 28 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: N Bowden

Authority

Watford (East of England)

Appeal reference

6006990

Application reference

25/01081/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Pair of two-storey one-bedroom houses with winter gardens, amenity space, refuse and cycle storage on a narrow strip between a car park and the ring road

Homes

2

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(1), HE9, S4

Development plan policies

Watford Local Plan SS1.1, CDA2.2, QD6.1, QD6.2, QD6.4, QD9.1, QD9.2, QD9.8, HE7.1, HE7.2, HO3.11, CC8.5, ST11.1, ST11.5

Main issues

conservation area; biodiversity net gain; living conditions; on-street parking

Summary

Two small houses on a strip between a car park and Watford's ring road, in the High Street / King Street Conservation Area. The trees that had screened the CA from the ring road were removed without consent after an earlier dismissal. The inspector held that building on the strip would prevent replacement planting and so harm the CA, and the public benefits could not outweigh the substantial weight to its conservation. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The changes to the Framework could affect the merits of this case in a material way and I, therefore, consulted the parties" (DL ¶2).
• Relative significance (HE9(2)). The trees "were not an integral component of the CA, they would have performed an important function in screening the more significant elements of the CA from the negative impacts of the ring road" (DL ¶12).
• Harm. The proposal "would remove any opportunity for replacement planting" (DL ¶12), contrary to local policies "and policy HE9 of the Framework insofar as it would cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset" (DL ¶13).
• Heritage balance. "these important public benefits are of insufficient weight by comparison to the substantial weight which should be given to the heritage asset's conservation" (DL ¶25). No degree of harm, and HE6(3)/(4) are not named.
• BNG, living conditions, parking: acceptable (DL ¶17, ¶20, ¶22).

Planning balance

S4 within a settlement: "the benefits of granting planning permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶26).

What made the difference

The lost tree screen. The inspector treated the site's value as the chance to restore screening, which development would foreclose.

Transferable points

• Under HE9(2), an element that is not itself significant can still matter for what it screens (DL ¶12).
• Development that forecloses replacement of unlawfully removed trees can itself harm a CA (DL ¶10, ¶12).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework because the changes could affect the merits (DL 2)
• Trees on the site were removed without conservation area consent after an earlier appeal was dismissed (APP/Y1945/W/22/3310039) (DL 6, 10)
• Houses themselves an improvement on the dismissed scheme and "not inharmonious" with the CA (DL 9)
• Car-free UU restricting parking permits in the CPZ accepted (DL 21-22)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.