Seven homes have been approved at Robins Nest Farm in Little Berkhamsted after an appeal allowed redevelopment of the existing residential and equestrian site. Inspector Jennifer Wallace granted permission on 12th October 2026 for application 3/24/1869/FUL, following East Hertfordshire District Council’s failure to issue a decision in time.
The site on Robins Nest Hill is in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Inspector accepted that it was previously developed land and found the proposed homes would reduce the volume of buildings without causing substantial harm to openness. The permission represents a net gain of six dwellings.
I would keep that Green Belt finding separate from the transport issue. The Inspector still found the location conflicted with the council’s strategy because residents would realistically depend on cars. Permission was granted after balancing that limited harm against the housing benefits and a financial contribution towards affordable housing.
What the Little Berkhamsted permission allows
The approved scheme demolishes existing buildings and provides seven dwellings with garages, landscaping and tree planting. It also alters the access, relocates entrance gates and provides parking, cycle storage and refuse facilities. The Inspector’s decision specifies the approved drawings and includes a schedule of 16 conditions.
This was an appeal against non-determination, rather than against a formal refusal notice. The council supplied four reasons it would have used to refuse the application. The main issues became Green Belt policy and openness, the suitability of the location, and effects on character and landscape.
The Little Berkhamsted appeal also involved an affordable-housing obligation. The parties agreed the amount of the contribution but disagreed about the basis on which it should be calculated. The Inspector’s findings on previously developed land and the Green Belt informed which contribution applied.
Previously developed land was the relevant exception
The site contains a modern dwelling, stables, a barn, other structures and a manège. The parties agreed that the proposal involved redevelopment of previously developed land. The Inspector assessed it against the relevant national Green Belt exception, including the requirement not to cause substantial harm to openness.
Openness concerns the absence of development and can have both spatial and visual aspects. Existing structures included a dwelling and barn of notable height. Other buildings were largely screened by those larger structures, which meant the amount of built development was not fully apparent in wider views.
The proposed homes would generally occupy land already containing buildings or the manège. They would form a rough line, extending the built form in one direction but reducing its depth. The total volume would fall. Culver Wood and landscaped boundaries would continue to provide a backdrop and contain views.
For Little Berkhamsted, the Inspector concluded that the reduction in volume and positioning on already developed parts of the site meant there would be no significant effect on openness. She found the scheme was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the previously developed land exception.
I would describe this as a brownfield redevelopment finding, rather than relabel it as a grey belt decision. The Inspector used a specific policy exception and assessed the actual buildings, volume and views. Green Belt designation remained, and the finding does not give a general right to replace equestrian premises with housing.
Car dependence remained a policy conflict
The road outside is unlit, has no footpath and is subject to the national speed limit. There is no consistent verge providing a walking route or refuge for cyclists. The Inspector also considered accident records involving pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, which reinforced the difficulties facing people using alternatives to cars.
Bus stops and village services are relatively nearby, and Hertford is a short drive away. However, the Inspector found that reaching these would only be realistically feasible by private car. Nearby rights of way did not provide direct routes to the relevant facilities or bus stops.
The Little Berkhamsted proposal included a pedestrian access, but that did not overcome the surrounding road conditions. Nor did electric vehicle charging establish that occupiers would own electric vehicles. An offered contribution to bus provision was not before the Inspector as a secured obligation.
She therefore found conflict with the spatial strategy in the East Herts District Plan. That policy requires development on previously developed land to be sustainable. The brownfield status answered one question, but did not automatically establish that the site’s location offered realistic travel choices.
Why the overall balance still favoured approval
The council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, although the shortfall was not quantified in this decision. The scheme would provide six additional dwellings. The Inspector gave substantial weight to that housing contribution and to the financial contribution towards affordable housing.
The Inspector considered the national approach to development outside settlements and to proposals that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt. On the evidence here, housing and affordable-housing benefits were not substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. She gave limited weight to the transport-related policy harm.
In the Little Berkhamsted appeal, that judgement also reflected the scheme’s relatively small scale and short car journeys to surrounding services. The Inspector did not find that car dependence had been eliminated. She assessed its significance in the planning balance for this particular development.
Economic benefits during construction and occupation, biodiversity enhancements and mandatory net gain provided further support, but received limited weight because of the scheme’s scale. Good design and acceptable living conditions were treated as expectations of development, rather than additional benefits that could be counted repeatedly.
Landscape effects and affordable housing
The Inspector accepted that the site would become more clearly residential and that the linear layout would have a somewhat suburban character. Nevertheless, existing substantial buildings, woodland and landscaped boundaries meant the development would not appear significantly more urbanised or materially harm the surrounding landscape.
The design was considered sufficiently good even though strong evidence of references to locally distinctive house types had not been supplied. Wider views were limited and glimpsed. The scheme was not found to be overdevelopment in the context of the scale of the village.
For Little Berkhamsted, the parties agreed that a financial affordable-housing contribution was appropriate instead of on-site provision. The Inspector selected Affordable Housing Contribution A in the signed undertaking because the site was brownfield. The decision does not provide a cash amount in its reasoning, so none should be inferred.
She found the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related to it and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These are the legal tests for the obligation. The contribution is part of the approved planning arrangement, rather than an optional future offer.
Conditions still control implementation
The official appeal decision concludes that the appeal should be allowed
. Conditions cover the approved plans, materials, landscaping, lighting, trees, ecological enhancements, biodiversity management, broadband, energy measures, charging points, parking, visibility, noise, contamination and construction management.
The Inspector did not remove national permitted development rights. She found no compelling justification for doing so and noted that there was no national presumption to remove those rights in the Green Belt. That is a finding about the conditions for this scheme, not an assurance that every later alteration would be permitted.
I would review the triggers in the condition schedule before starting any work. Some requirements apply before development begins and others before works above ground or occupation. The permission does not establish that those details have already been approved or that construction has started.
Our planning appeals guide explains the process more generally. This is an English Inspector’s decision, reference APP/J1915/W/25/3376568, not court case law. Its value lies in the precise comparison between existing development, the proposed buildings, travel limitations and secured housing benefits.
0 Comments