Three-bedroom rural dwelling at Five Acres Farm, Hemel Hempstead

What was proposed

The application sought to convert an existing equestrian building into a self-build three-bedroom dwelling and remove associated equestrian storage.

“Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the existing equestrian building into a three-bedroom dwellinghouse.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site contains a former agricultural barn in equestrian use, within the Green Belt and Chilterns National Landscape, beside open countryside and a bridleway.

“The site is located on the south side of Nettleden Road, within the Green Belt and the CNL. It is also subject to an Article 4 Direction that restricts certain agricultural permitted development rights. The surrounding area is characterised by open agricultural land, with a bridleway running immediately to the south of the site.”

“The site contains an open-fronted barn originally constructed in 1992. The building was altered to its current form in 1994 under application 4/00526/94/RET, which permitted the partial retention and alteration of the structure for agricultural use, together with new entrance gates and associated landscaping. The sites lawful use is now for equestrian purposes.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeals

Applications to convert the building into a dwelling were refused in 2004 and 2014, and both subsequent appeals were dismissed.

“4/00161/14/FUL - Conversion of redundant building into dwelling Refused - 24th March 2014”

“4/00157/04/FUL - Conversion of redundant building to dwelling Refused - 5th March 2004”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site Grey Belt previously developed land and found the proposal acceptable because it avoided substantial Green Belt harm and included mitigation.

“The site is in established equestrian use and is considered to fall within the NPPF definition of previously developed land (“PDL”). Paragraph 154(g) confirms that the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL, including a material change of use to residential, is not inappropriate development where it would not result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.”

“The December 2024 NPPF and updated Green Belt PPG introduce the concept of Grey Belt, defined as land within the Green Belt that comprises PDL and/or land that does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) of paragraph 143. The site does not lie adjacent to a large built-up area (purpose a), does not contribute to preventing neighbouring towns merging (purpose b), and does not relate to the setting of a historic town (purpose d).”

Officer report

Landscape, access and nature

The proposal would change the building’s appearance, but officers considered landscape planting, ecological measures and safe access sufficient to address its effects.

“Improved entrance features (gates and signage). • Native planting (c. eight fruit trees and six small/medium trees) within the immediate curtilage to soften appearance from the roadside. • Intermittent native tree and shrub planting within the south-eastern corner of the site. • Boundary screening planting including species rich native infill and intermittent native tree planting. • Small/medium copse planting (c.”

“Schedule 2, Part 1 – Class A Enlargement, improvement or alteration of a dwellinghouse Required to prevent extensions encroaching into the boundary treatment and planting areas, ensuring the approved landscape mitigation is protected. Schedule 2, Part 1 – Class B Additions to the roof (dormers) Necessary to retain a small-scale building form and to minimise potential light-spill from first-floor level.”

Officer report

Objections and resident responses

A local society objected on Green Belt, sustainability, landscape, highway and future development grounds, while no local residents submitted responses.

“Green Belt harm – Previous Inspectors (2004 & 2014) found the same proposal caused substantial Green Belt harm.”

“While the site lies within the Green Belt and the Chilterns National Landscape, it is not considered that these designations, in this case, amount to a “strong reason” for refusal under NPPF 11(d)(i). The proposal has been assessed on its merits within this policy context.”

Officer report

Who spoke to members

A parish councillor and a representative spoke against the application, after the case officer introduced the proposal to the committee.

The committee vote

Councillor Maddern proposed delegation with a view to approval, Councillor Guest seconded it, and members voted five for, four against and one abstention.

“It was proposed by Councillor Maddern and seconded by Councillor Guest to DELEGATE WITH A VIEW TO APPROVAL.”

Minutes