Sarratt homes planned behind Church Lane have won planning permission on appeal, including ten affordable properties, after an Inspector overturned Three Rivers District Council’s refusal. C Shearing allowed Clovercourt (Sarratt) Ltd’s 20-home scheme on 12th October 2026, subject to 17 conditions.
The decision concerns land at the edge of Sarratt in Hertfordshire, England, close to the Chilterns National Landscape. It permits the homes, parking, landscaping, a new vehicle access from Church Lane and a pedestrian connection to the existing public footpath.
I would separate two parts of this result. The development can proceed once the relevant requirements are met, despite identified landscape and housing-policy conflicts. But winning permission did not secure reimbursement of appeal expenses: a separate application for a partial costs award was refused.
Why the Sarratt homes qualified as grey belt
The council did not dispute that the land met the national definition of grey belt. The Inspector found that the site did not strongly contribute to the relevant Green Belt purposes and that development would not fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt across the plan area.
That was only part of the assessment. The decision also considered unmet housing need, whether residents would have realistic alternatives to driving, and the affordable-housing, infrastructure and green-space requirements known as the Golden Rules. The site remained Green Belt; this appeal did not redraw its boundary.
The Sarratt homes passed the location test despite a poor score on the national Connectivity Tool. The Inspector identified nearby services, including a post office, surgery, village hall and school, alongside buses towards Hemel Hempstead and Watford. Church Lane lacks a designated footway, while the proposed footpath connection would be unlit and without natural surveillance.
Those limitations were acknowledged. Taken together, however, the village relationship and available routes meant future residents would have some choice of transport for day-to-day needs. This is a site-specific assessment, rather than a finding that a poor connectivity score can simply be ignored.
The 50% affordable-housing offer and secured infrastructure contributions met the relevant requirements. Approximately 0.03 hectares of on-site green space, together with access to the wider footpath network, also satisfied the Inspector. The development was therefore not inappropriate in Green Belt terms, removing the need to demonstrate very special circumstances.
Landscape harm and local housing conflicts remained
The Sarratt homes were not found harmless. The Inspector accepted that building behind Church Lane would urbanise land contributing to the quiet, green setting of the Chilterns National Landscape. Council data suggested a small encroachment of its boundary into the site’s north-western corner.
Rear gardens, boundary planting and the detailed layout would soften the effect. Unlike the earlier outline scheme considered on appeal in 2023, this application fixed the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping, giving greater certainty about the eventual impact. Even so, very limited landscape harm remained and attracted substantial weight.
The scheme also conflicted with the district policy limiting the proportion of housing directed to villages. Its mix of homes broadly reflected wider South West Hertfordshire needs, but differed from the smaller-home emphasis of the Sarratt Neighbourhood Plan. The Inspector gave significant weight to that neighbourhood-plan conflict.
Against those harms, the council accepted that it could demonstrate only a 1.2-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Inspector described this as a “very significant and concerning shortfall”. Twenty homes made a tangible contribution, and half would be affordable, including family-sized accommodation.
The decision gave substantial weight to the housing contribution and compliance with the Golden Rules. Economic benefits and biodiversity net gain also counted in favour. Overall, the benefits were not substantially outweighed by the adverse effects under the national policy test applied in this appeal.
Ten affordable homes and infrastructure payments
Ten of the Sarratt homes will be affordable, across social rented and shared ownership tenures. That exceeds the council’s policy expectation of around 45%. The decision records planning obligations dated 11th December 2025 and 29th September 2026, which the Inspector considered capable of securing the relevant commitments.
The later agreement secured £38,978 towards special educational needs and disabilities provision and £2,270 towards a waste transfer station, together with associated county monitoring fees. The Inspector accepted the evidence and calculation approach supporting those contributions.
For applicants, the useful point is that infrastructure requests still needed evidence connecting the payment to the development. Other concerns, including healthcare pressure, poor mobile signal and power cuts, were acknowledged, but the Inspector found insufficient evidence that additional contributions were necessary.
Sewage restriction rejected, conditions still apply
Thames Water suggested restricting occupation until works to the sewage treatment works had been undertaken. The Inspector had no details of those works or their completion timescale. They would also be outside the developer’s control, potentially imposing a disproportionate burden on delivery.
The suggested condition was rejected because it did not meet the tests of reasonableness and enforceability. I would read that finding carefully: it concerns the evidence and wording in this appeal, rather than establishing that wastewater capacity can never justify a planning restriction.
The permission for the Sarratt homes still carries detailed safeguards. Work must begin within three years, and pre-commencement approvals include construction management, waste, tree protection, ecology and drainage. Further requirements address materials, landscaping, energy efficiency, access, parking, refuse storage and external lighting.
For the Sarratt homes, residents should therefore expect more submissions before construction can lawfully start. A successful appeal is a permission with requirements attached, rather than confirmation that all the practical work of delivering the scheme has already been completed.
Why the costs application failed
The separate costs decision records that officers had recommended approval and councillors reached a different view. The Inspector expressed concern about how the committee reached its Green Belt conclusion, including repeated references to a rural exception site, but assessed the council’s conduct overall.
The council subsequently substantiated its position with reasonable appeal arguments. Disagreement over the planning balance, neighbourhood-plan weight and the likelihood of implementing the earlier permission did not establish unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary or wasted expense. The partial costs application was refused.
For anyone considering a similar appeal, I would keep the permission case and costs case distinct. The Inspector can overturn a refusal while still concluding that the council’s defence did not meet the separate threshold for an award.
Read the Planning Inspectorate’s official appeal and separate costs decisions, reference 6002930. For background, see our guide to Green Belt and grey belt and Section 106 agreements.
0 Comments