# Land to the rear of The White House, Munden Road, Dane End - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Felgate - **Authority:** East Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007451 - **Application reference:** 3/25/1936/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build/custom-build 1.5-storey dwelling with garage/studio outbuilding on a former tennis court behind a Grade II listed house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, listed-building-setting, PDL, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), S5(1)(j), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** East Hertfordshire District Plan 2018 DPS2, GBR2, VILL2, DES2, DES3, DES4, HA1, HA7, WAT4 - **Main issues:** rural development policy, character and appearance, setting of listed building, trees and hedges - **Tags:** s5-1-d-pdl, s5-1-j, self-build, self-build-unsecured, heritage-no-harm, heritage-setting, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, plan-led, drafting-slip ## Summary A single self-build dwelling on a former tennis court in a field behind the Grade II listed White House at Dane End, just outside the village boundary. Allowed. The tennis court was PDL, so the scheme accorded with local policy GBR2(e) and with S5(1)(d). It also met S5(1)(j), given the district's lack of a five-year supply. The field was found to fall outside the listed building's setting, so the effect on the heritage asset was neutral. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the appellants and the Council have been given an opportunity to comment on the relevance of the new NPPF policies" (DL ¶3). - **Principle — S5(1)(d) and (j): PASS.** "the requirements of NPPF Policy S5, under both 1d and 1j, are clearly met" (DL ¶10). The small non-PDL driveway incursion was "so small in my view, as to be of no real significance in policy terms ... necessary, to enable the main PDL area to be developed" (DL ¶8). - **Character: NO HARM.** The site is enclosed on two sides by housing, seen from about 60 m against trees. Any impact on the village setting "at most, limited and localised" (DL ¶13). - **Setting — HE6: NEUTRAL.** A functional link existed during the nursery period, but "None of the evidence establishes any link ... during the 1830s or mid-19th century, which is the period to which the building's significance primarily relates" (DL ¶19). "it is these garden areas that now form the limits of the listed building's current setting" (DL ¶21). A limited heritage statement was "proportionate" (DL ¶24). - **Self-build.** "the development is not secured as self- or custom build ... The potential benefit therefore carries only modest weight". An obligation was not needed because the scheme accords with the plan (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance No weighing was needed. The scheme accords with the development plan, "is supported by Policy S5", and "The acknowledged shortfall in the district's housing supply adds further weight". "None of the alleged adverse impacts have been substantiated" (DL ¶¶36-37). ## What made the difference Classing the tennis court as PDL put the scheme within both a local policy exception and S5(1)(d), so no balance was needed. On heritage, the appellant's map evidence showed that the field's link to the house began in the 20th century (the nursery), not in the period that gives the building its significance. The field was also screened by dense planting. The Council's argument about a functional link failed for lack of evidence of an original relationship. ## Transferable points - A hard-surfaced, fenced tennis court outside a village boundary can be PDL, bringing S5(1)(d) into play (DL ¶¶7, 10). - A minor non-PDL element needed to access the PDL (a driveway or turning area) does not defeat the principle (DL ¶8). - The setting argument depends on the relationship in the period that gives the building its significance. A later functional link, such as a 20th-century nursery, does not bring land within the setting (DL ¶¶19-21). - A modest heritage statement is enough if its accuracy is not disputed (DL ¶24). - Unsecured self-build gets only modest weight but is not needed where the scheme is otherwise acceptable (DL ¶32). - Drafting slip: the self-build policy is cited as "NPPF Policy H1-2i", which is not a 2026 code (probably HO5) (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass.** tennis court (asphalt on engineered base, chain-link fencing) accepted as PDL; a small incursion into the field for the driveway is "of no real significance" (DL 7-10) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no five-year supply accepted; site directly adjoins the settlement; single dwelling acceptable in scale (DL 10) - **HE6: neutral.** rear field outside the Grade II White House's current setting, which is limited to historic gardens; no meaningful intervisibility; relationship only via 20th-century nursery use; driveway works negligible (DL 16-25) - **HO5: benefit (moderate weight).** self-build not secured by UU or condition so "modest" weight; cited in the letter as "NPPF Policy H1-2i" (DL 31-32) - **EHDP GBR2(e): accord.** redevelopment of PDL in a sustainable location (Group 2 village with shop/post office and bus service) (DL 6-9) ## Key facts - The Council accepted the tennis court is PDL (DL 7) - Listed house's significance lies in its 1830-40 evidential value; the field was a glasshouse nursery by 1922, and its link to the house is recent (DL 16-19) - Loss of a category B liquidambar (not TPO) accepted as very limited harm (DL 27) - Parties invited to comment on the new Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007451 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b8f4ad02-813c-4f88-97a9-52d16911f8a8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007451.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.