# 58 and 60 Waverley Road, St Albans (former sports and social club)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bell-Williamson
- **Authority:** St Albans (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009808
- **Application reference:** 5/25/0057
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Redevelopment of a cleared former sports and social club site with four houses (2 x 3-bed, 2 x 2-bed)
- **Homes:** 4
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 1.12
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), DP3(1), TR3(1)(c), S4
- **Development plan policies:** St Albans Local Plan 2024-2041 (adopted 9 Sep 2026) SP7, SP12, DES1, DES4, TRA1
- **Main issues:** loss of community use, character and appearance, neighbours' living conditions, amenity space, parking and highway safety
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, backland, community-facility, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, new-local-plan, drafting-slip, costs-application, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Four houses on the site of a demolished sports and social club in St Albans. Loss of the community use was accepted under HC6, since the club had failed financially. But the rear pair would be cramped and overlook neighbours, the front gardens would be too small, and highway safety was not demonstrated. With DP3(3) cited and a highway conflict under TR3(1)(c), the adverse effects substantially outweighed four homes on a 1.12-year supply. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Plan and Framework.** "The St Albans Local Plan 2024-2041 was adopted on 9 September 2026." (DL ¶2). Parties consulted on the Framework (DL ¶3).
- **Community use, HC6: PASS.** "I must conclude that it has been demonstrated that the community use of the site is no longer needed" (DL ¶14).
- **Character.** "This would result in a cramped appearance to the dwellings in this location." (DL ¶17).
- **Highways.** "A Grampian condition to ensure the land’s availability would not be appropriate as this type of condition should relate to land that is not controlled by the applicant." (DL ¶31).
- **Framework balance.** "Policy P3 requires the application of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy P4 states that development within settlements, as proposed here, should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶37). These are slips for S3 and S4.
- **Housing.** "The proposal would provide four dwellings in circumstances where there is 1.12 years supply of deliverable housing sites" (DL ¶38). "Substantial weight is given to this benefit in accordance with Policy HO7." (DL ¶38).
- **DP3.** "I give this adverse effect substantial weight, particularly as the Framework states at DP3(3) that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of the policy" (DL ¶40).
- **Highway safety, TR3(1)(c).** "there is a conflict with Policy TR3(1)(c). This adverse effect should attract significant weight." (DL ¶41).

## Planning balance
S4 (as "P4"): "I conclude that in this case the adverse effects of granting permission substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶42). Plan-led conclusion against the new Local Plan (DL ¶43).

## What made the difference
Squeezing a second pair of houses into the rear of the site, close to both the neighbouring garden and the Chene Mews frontages. The community-use objection fell away on the viability evidence, but the design and amenity objections did not.

## Transferable points
- HC6 is met where a closed club went into receivership through lack of viability, even if other management might have kept it open (DL ¶12-14).
- DP3(3) used to lift the weight of a DP3(1) conflict to substantial, without an express clear-justification finding (DL ¶40).
- Highway-safety conflicts are coded to TR3(1)(c) (significant adverse impacts on highway safety to be mitigated) rather than TR6 (DL ¶41).
- A Grampian condition is not the tool for land the appellant already controls; an obligation is needed (DL ¶31).

## Policy findings
- **HC6: pass.** club closed 2018 after financial decline and receivership; no reasonable prospect of the use being retained (DL 8-14)
- **DP3(1): conflict (substantial weight).** rear pair cramped, too close to Chene Mews frontages and forward of their building line; plus living conditions and garden size (DL 17-19, 40)
- **DP3(3): fail.** cited to support substantial weight to the DP3(1) conflict; no separate clear-justification finding (DL 40)
- **P3: harm.** mapped; overlooking and overbearing effect on No 62 garden (about 4.5 m separation) and inter-visibility with Chene Mews (DL 20-25)
- **TR3(1)(c): fail (significant weight).** highway safety not demonstrated - turning relies on land outside site with no obligation; splays and signs unevidenced (DL 29-34, 41)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** four homes on a 1.12-year supply (DL 38)
- **L3: benefit (limited weight).** efficient use of land discounted because the scheme is not well designed (DL 38)
- **S3: fail.** letter says Policy P3 and Policy P4 for the presumption and development within settlements (S3, S4); adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits (DL 37, 42-43)

## Key facts
- New St Albans Local Plan 2024-2041 adopted 9 Sep 2026 replaced the 1994 plan during the appeal (DL 2)
- Rear gardens of the front 3-bed houses 36.5 and 37.5 sq m against the 80 sq m standard now in the supporting text to DES4 (DL 26-28)
- Grampian condition over land in the appellant's control not appropriate; no planning obligation offered (DL 31)
- Costs application by the appellant decided separately (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009808
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cd04fbba-78b3-4507-8410-8f8d88c88c49

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009808.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.