Two replacement homes at 58 Bell Lane, Brookmans Park

What was proposed

The application sought two dwellings with access, parking, amenity space and landscaping after demolishing the existing bungalow.

“ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING, AMENITY SPACE AND LANDSCAPING FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUNGALOW”

“This application seeks permission for the erection of two dwellings with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping following the demolition of the existing bungalow. This application follows the submission of one previous application for residential development at the site (6/2025/0432/FULL) which was refused on design grounds. This application was a delegated decision.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a vacant bungalow within the Green Belt, with protected trees, an unadopted access road and a semi-rural setting.

“The application site comprises a vacant bungalow and its curtilage located within Bell Bar and is accessed via an unadopted road off the adopted Bell Lane. A structural report has been submitted with the application which concludes the property is in a poor state of repair. The rear portion of the site is covered by a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and the site is entirely located within the Green Belt. The site is largely flat.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier application for two homes was refused because of design, hardstanding, boundary treatments and loss of the heritage asset.

“Application Number: 6/2025/0432/FULL Decision: Refused Decision Date: October 2025 Proposal: Erection of two dwellings with associated access, parking, garages, amenity space and landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow.”

“Reason for refusal: The proposed development, by reason of the scale and design of the dwellings, garages, boundary treatments, and extensive areas of hardstanding to the site’s frontage, fails to respond positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The lack of meaningful landscaping further contributes to a visually harsh and unsympathetic form of development that does not integrate well with its context.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the revised design acceptable and the benefits greater than the identified heritage harm.

“Summary of adverse impacts 10.9 As identified in this report, the harm caused by the proposed development relates to the loss of a non-designated heritage asset (the existing bungalow). However, compared to the previous refusal, the design improvements in this current application would remove the harm previously identified in relation to the poor standard of design in relation to its context. As such, the proposal now represents a suitable replacement.”

“In the event that members disagree that the scheme complies with NPPF grey belt provision and VSCs are relevant to the consideration of the application, it is officers view that the cumulative harm of the inappropriate development in the green belt (resulting in substantial harm) and the moderate harm arising from the loss of the non-designated heritage asset would outweigh the benefits of the scheme.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The conservation officer objected, while transport, ecology, landscape and other consultees raised no objections in principle or no objection.

“The following consultees have objected to the proposal: • Place Services (Conservation Officer)”

“The following consultees have responded advising that they have no objections to the proposal in principle, subject to conditions or obligations being applied:”

Officer report

What residents said

Four objections raised concerns about Green Belt development, heritage loss, excessive scale, neighbour amenity, design and biodiversity.

“The application was advertised by means of neighbour consultation letters and a site notice. In total, 4 representations have been received, each of these are objections. All representations received are published in full on the Council’s website and are summarised below. Summary of objections:”

“Inappropriate development in the Green Belt – there is no designation of Grey Belt in the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Local Plan. • Loss of a non-designated heritage asset (part of the original Brookmans Estate) without justification as required in the NPPF. • Inappropriate replacement buildings and poor design response. Harms not outweighed by the public benefits and are fundamental in nature.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent supported the application, while a residents’ representative, a parish council representative and a ward councillor opposed it.

The vote

The committee voted nine in favour and two against granting planning permission subject to the reported conditions.

“Resolved: (for 9, against 2) That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report.”

Minutes