Land East of Tring (Marshcroft) — appeal stance review

Decision

refused, 10 September 2026

Decided by

Council planning committee: Dacorum Development Management Committee (recorded vote 5 for / 6 against / 1 abstention on motion to concede)

Authority

Dacorum (East of England)

Application reference

25/01880/MOA

Procedure

committee

Development

Hybrid, up to 1,400 dwellings incl. up to 140 C2 extra care, local centre, sports/community hub, primary and secondary schools, SANG (appeal pending; inquiry from 10 Nov 2026)

Homes

1400

Site context

green belt, settlement edge, near station, national landscape, agricultural land BMV, listed building setting

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt rejected)

Housing land supply

1.18 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB6(2), GB7(1)(h), L3(2)(c), L3(4), HC4

Development plan policies

Dacorum Core Strategy 2013 CS5, emerging Local Plan allocation TR03

Main issues

grey belt; station route GB7(1)(h); density L3; HC4 weight uplift; VSC; appeal stance and costs

Summary

This was not a fresh determination. The committee decided whether to keep defending Green Belt reason for refusal 1 at the forthcoming inquiry into its April 2026 refusal of 1,400 homes east of Tring, after the new Framework was published. Officers made no recommendation. Their report found three benefits moving from limited to substantial weight under HC4: schools, community facilities and recreation. It also found that the new station route GB7(1)(h) could cover the part of the site within about 800 m of Tring station, but that part would then breach the new L3 minimum density of 45 dph. On a recorded vote of 6-5, members refused to concede that very special circumstances now exist, so the Council will continue to defend RfR1.

Issues and findings

• Grey belt: unchanged. Members' finding that the site "strongly contributes to purpose (a)" stands. Officers: "there is no material change to this policy which alters Members' previous conclusion" (Report ¶4.11).
• GB7(1)(h) station route: partial PASS. Tring meets the well-connected definition and the higher L3 threshold (4–5 direct Euston services an hour one way in all sampled periods) (¶4.17–4.18). "Only a limited part of the appeal site falls within this radius … Policy GB7(1)(h) applies only to that part of the site" (¶4.20). "Unlike Policy GB7(1)(g), GB7(1)(h) does not require the land to constitute Grey Belt" (¶4.13).
• L3 density: CONFLICT. The parameter plan shows 25–40 dph against a 45 dph minimum (¶8.9). "the station relationship which potentially assists the proposal in Green Belt terms simultaneously gives rise to the requirement to achieve a materially higher residential density. Even if that part of the site were not inappropriate development, development on that part of the site is the kind which by L3(4) 'should' be refused … Such a conflict is the kind of policy conflict that could outweigh the S5 presumption" (¶8.12).
• HC4 uplift. "Policy HC4 now expressly directs substantial weight to qualifying benefits" (¶11.6). Schools, community facilities and recreation/sport each move from limited to substantial weight (¶17.2).
• Heritage. "The revised terminology does not materially alter the substantive weighting previously applied" (Table 1). Officers treat substantial weight as equal to great weight.
• Tilted balance. Paragraph 11(d) has been replaced by S3–S5, and S5(5) excludes Green Belt, so the balance for inappropriate parts is GB6 VSC (¶3.3–3.5).
• Costs. The appellant has signalled a full costs application. Members were told that maintaining a reason "which cannot subsequently be substantiated … could be found to have acted unreasonably" (¶15.4).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC for the parts that remain inappropriate. Harms: substantial weight each to inappropriateness, purposes and openness; great weight to the National Landscape; substantial (formerly great) weight to heritage; significant weight to BMV land and to predetermination of the plan; moderate weight to landscape character. Benefits: market housing, 50% affordable, extra care, self-build, socio-economic and 40% BNG all substantial, with schools, community and recreation now also substantial. Members held, 6-5, that the balance still did not clearly outweigh the harms.

What made the difference

Members kept their earlier finding that the land strongly serves purpose (a). Once that holds, the extra HC4 weight only feeds a VSC balance in which Green Belt harm already carries substantial weight three times over. GB7(1)(h) was no help: it reaches only the land within 800 m, and there it creates an L3 density conflict the parameter plan does not meet. This is the first recorded treatment of L3(4) as a reason that could defeat GB7(1)(h) land under S5.

Transferable points

• GB7(1)(h) applies only to the part of a site within reasonable walking distance (Annex B), and officers mapped an 800 m radius to apply it (Report ¶4.20).
• A GB7(1)(h) site near a station that meets twice the well-connected frequency triggers the 45 dph minimum in L3(2)(c). Failing it engages L3(4) "should be refused", which officers treat as capable of outweighing the S5(5) presumption (¶8.11–8.12).
• HC4 is being read as raising community, education and recreation benefits from limited to substantial weight (¶11.6, ¶17.2). Expect developers to use this in VSC balances.
• Officers read HE6 "substantial weight" as equivalent to the old "great weight" (Table 1; ¶10.9).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Officers had recommended approval in April 2026; members refused (7 reasons); appeal lodged, inquiry 10 Nov 2026
• After the new NPPF, officers made no recommendation, but set out three benefits moving from limited to substantial weight under HC4 and warned of costs
• Motion that VSC now exist and RfR1 no longer be contested failed 5-6 (1 abstention), recorded vote
• Council supply 1.18 years; site is emerging allocation TR03 under examination, local plan inspectors raised concerns in July 2026
• Tring station 4-5 direct Euston trains/hour one way; only small part of site within 800 m radius

Sources

• democracy.dacorum.gov.uk
• democracy.dacorum.gov.uk
• democracy.dacorum.gov.uk

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.