# 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
- **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, tree-loss, small-scheme

## 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
- **HE9: harm.** HE9(2) relative significance; removed tree belt screened the CA from the ring road; building here would stop replacement planting (DL 10-13)
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** public benefits (two homes, energy efficiency and low-carbon heat) insufficient against the substantial weight to conservation; degree of harm not graded and HE6(3)/(4) not named (DL 7, 24-25)
- **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 23, 26)
- **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): pass.** off-site credits a legitimate route; unauthorised tree clearance to be accounted for by condition (DL 15-17)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006990
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d207cc9a-f535-4563-98a9-d023b0a68501

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006990.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.