A Dacorum care home appeal for a proposed 67-bedroom nursing and dementia facility at Bulbourne Wood, Northchurch, has been dismissed despite the Inspector accepting that the land qualifies as grey belt. The effects on protected woodland, habitats, the Chilterns National Landscape and travel options proved decisive.
Inspector A Edgington dismissed appeal 6003892 on 26th October 2026. It concerned an outline proposal on New Road, near Berkhamsted, with the access junction and road for determination and other matters reserved. Dacorum Borough Council had refused application 24/02705/MOA.
The ruling matters beyond Hertfordshire. Dacorum could demonstrate just over one year’s housing land supply and there was an accepted need for specialist care beds. I would not treat grey belt status and unmet need as a shortcut to consent: here they did not overcome the proposal’s separate planning and environmental problems.
Why the care home appeal failed the grey belt tests
The revised August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework distinguishes identifying grey belt land from securing permission to develop it. The Inspector found that Bulbourne Wood satisfied the grey belt definition even though a wider Green Belt assessment identified countryside encroachment. That particular Green Belt purpose is not part of the definition’s three-purpose test.
However, policy GB7(1)(g) requires more than grey belt status. It includes an evidenced unmet need, a sustainable location and, for relevant major housing development, compliance with the Golden Rules. Planning Geek’s guide to grey belt and Green Belt explains why passing the definition is not permission in itself.
For the care home appeal, transport became a major obstacle. The building would operate around the clock. As many as 30 staff could be on site, against 24 proposed parking spaces. Staff, relatives, clinicians, deliveries and emergency vehicles would also need access.
The identified X500 bus stop was about 600 metres away, reached on a footway too narrow in places for pedestrians to pass without stepping into the road. Berkhamsted station was about 2.5 kilometres away. The bus service had no Sunday operation, while the proposed shuttle and travel incentives did not establish genuine transport choices.
The Inspector found that the scheme failed the sustainable-location requirement. It was not enough to point to a bus route, offer a travel plan or assume workers completing long shifts could readily travel without a car.
Affordable care beds and the Golden Rules
The Golden Rules did not rescue the scheme. The Inspector considered previous decisions suggesting that a Class C2 care home does not have to provide affordable bedspaces simply to satisfy the affordable housing limb of policy GB8. This was not a finding that affordable care accommodation had no benefit.
The proposed section 106 agreement offered alternative arrangements for 30 or 50 per cent affordable bedspaces. Those would have carried weight in the planning balance. The Inspector also accepted that a nursing home could contribute to local infrastructure.
The difficulty was the proposed publicly accessible woodland walk. It would weave around fences and private plots, with narrow stretches and little useful open space. Instead of high-quality green space and nature recovery, it risked disturbing fragile habitat. The Inspector concluded that the Golden Rules would not be met.
As neither the sustainable-location test nor the Golden Rules was satisfied, the care home appeal could not rely on the grey belt exception. It remained inappropriate Green Belt development, attracting substantial weight against permission.
Why 153 planned tree removals were not the whole story
Bulbourne Wood has been subject to a woodland Tree Preservation Order since 2006. The applicant’s arboricultural information identified 153 trees for removal, including 30 category B, 72 category C and 51 category U trees. These were not the only potential losses that concerned the Inspector.
The construction arrangement was not fixed at outline stage. Tree protection areas, access roads, loading and contractor space appeared difficult to reconcile. The Inspector was not satisfied that the home could realistically be built without harming or removing more trees, including through pressure for later pruning on safety grounds.
The site contained beech, larch and Scots pine. Some conifers were declining, but the Inspector rejected the idea that woodland’s lack of commercial value or untidy condition reduced its landscape significance. Deadwood, natural regeneration and the changing mix of species could also have ecological value.
The building, access road, fencing and continuous activity would considerably urbanise this part of New Road and harm Green Belt openness. The care home appeal therefore involved much more than the visual impact of a single new building.
Chilterns protection and the Special Area of Conservation could not be set aside
The site lies within the Chilterns National Landscape and within the influence of the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation. The nearby Tring Woodland Site of Special Scientific Interest also required consideration. These overlapping protections mattered independently of whether the site was grey belt.
An Environmental Statement was supplied after the Secretary of State required environmental impact assessment, delaying the hearing. The Inspector nevertheless found deficiencies in the evidence about construction effects, habitat fragmentation, disturbance, lighting and the likely response of protected species.
Concerns extended to birds, bats, badgers, reptiles, amphibians and stag beetles. Proposed mitigation relied heavily on future management plans and assumptions that animals would adapt. The Inspector concluded that the effects on the protected European habitat site would be significant and adverse.
Although statutory 10 per cent biodiversity net gain could in principle be achieved, that calculation did not answer every question about replacing woodland or avoiding harm to protected habitats. Nor were exceptional circumstances established to justify major development in the protected landscape.
Specialist housing need carried weight, but not enough
The Inspector acknowledged a projected requirement for another 686 nursing care bedspaces in Dacorum by 2041, against a current supply of 942. The district’s supply of conventional housing was also severely constrained. Under the 2026 Framework, evidence of unmet need gave the proposed specialist accommodation substantial policy support.
But current care-bed occupancy was just under 84 per cent and the Inspector did not regard the shortage as critical at present. The parties calculated the home as equivalent to 35 dwellings under the relevant methodology. That did not mean 35 existing houses would necessarily return to the market.
The applicant argued that a woodland setting would benefit people with dementia. The Inspector found the cited evidence did not demonstrate that benefit for the proposed residents, whose care needs would be substantial. The argument could not justify this particular location.
Summing up the conflicting protections, the Inspector wrote: The site has multiple statutory designations, any one of which could ordinarily preclude development.
Brief quotations from the Planning Inspectorate decision are reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Planning Geek’s specialist housing guidance and Use Class C2 explanation explain the planning distinctions between care homes and conventional dwellinghouses.
What the care home appeal means for future schemes
This care home appeal is a warning against treating grey belt as a single pass-or-fail label. The land could qualify as grey belt without the development satisfying the wider GB7 requirements. Separate protections for National Landscapes, special conservation sites and substantial woodland remained capable of determining the outcome.
Applicants for specialist residential schemes also need travel evidence suited to their actual operating pattern, not generic travel-plan promises. A facility operating 24 hours a day, with staff changing shifts and visitors arriving independently, presents different demands from ordinary housing.
Likewise, a proposal to fell a defined number of trees is not a complete answer where construction logistics, retained tree stability, adjoining ownership and long-term use could lead to additional losses. Prospective biodiversity gains do not automatically extinguish obligations to protect designated habitats.
The care home appeal was a section 78 decision on a particular evidential record, not a court judgment or a blanket prohibition on care homes in the Green Belt. The benefits were weighed, but did not overcome the combined policy and environmental harm.
The appeal decision
The official Planning Inspectorate record for appeal 6003892 concerns the decision issued on 26th October 2026. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The proposal was outline application 24/02705/MOA at Bulbourne Wood, Northchurch, and the Inspector dismissed the section 78 appeal.
0 Comments