Appeal Decision The Planning Inspectorate

4/11 Eagle Wing

Temple Quay House
Inquiry opened on 29 June 2010 2 The Square
Temple Quay
Site visit made on 30 June 2010 Bristol BS1 6PN

0117 372 6372
by Jennifer Vyse DipTP DipPBM MRTPI email:enquiries@pins.gsi.g
ov.uk
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:
for Communities and Local Government 12 August 2010

Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

Edgwarebury Cemetery, Edgwarebury Lane, Barnet, London HA8
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a
refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by the Trustees of Belsize Square Synagogue against the decision of the
Council of the London Borough of Barnet.
• The application No H/04617/08, dated 12 December 2008, was refused by a notice dated 13
October 2009.
• The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘Change of use from
agricultural land to a cemetery to allow extension of existing Edgwarebury Lane Cemetery.
Creation of three access points across Clay Lane. Associated landscaping, boundary
treatments, internal access arrangements and the reconfiguration of existing car park to
provide a further 18 spaces and 8 staff spaces.’

Application for Costs

1. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by the appellant against the
Council. That application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters
2. The Inquiry opened on 29 June 2010 and sat for four consecutive days. The
site visit, which was undertaken on an accompanied basis, took place on the
afternoon of the second day.
3. Subsequent to submission of the application to the Council in 2008, and
following a lengthy period of negotiation, the scheme was amended such that
the number of access points across Clay Lane was reduced from three to one.
In addition, it was confirmed that none of the trees on the site, with the
possible exception of a single dead specimen, would need to be felled. At the
start of the Inquiry, it was requested that I consider further revised plans
contained within the proof of Mr McInerney (Listed as Plan B).
4. Those opposing the development objected to the substitution on the basis that
the scheme was materially different from that considered by the planning
committee. The objection was based on the belief that the plans presented to
the committee proposed the felling of a significant number of trees, whereas
the revised plans show retention of all but one. However, notwithstanding that
the first reason for refusal includes reference to potential loss of trees and
hedgerows, the plans agreed as comprising those on which the Council’s
decision was based clearly show (with the exception already referred to) that it
was not intended to fell any trees and neither, other than a short stretch to
facilitate the proposed access, would any hedgerow be removed. It was also
re-confirmed by both the appellant and the Council (and it is apparent from the
committee report) that the scheme before the committee did not involve the
felling of trees. On the contrary, it showed significant additional planting of
trees and hedgerows.
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

5. The revised plans provide amended information in relation to the planting and
seeding proposals, and to landscape and ecology management, the main
differences being that the planting scheme is extended around the whole of the
appeal site, as opposed to around only the southern part, and it includes root
protection areas for the retained trees which would be permanently fenced off
and seeded with wild flowers. I am satisfied that the amendments are not
materially different from the scheme considered by Members and that no
parties’ interest would be prejudiced were I to accept them as a substitution. I
shall proceed on this basis.

6. The proposal involves works to Clay Lane, a former ‘Road used as a Public
Path’, now a restricted byway. Were the appeal to succeed, the byway would
need to be closed off for a temporary period whilst works to create a formal
crossing are carried out. That can only be achieved by way of a Traffic
Regulation Order under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
In addition, a separate consent would be required from the Highway Authority
for the works. Whilst these matters may have implications for implementation
were the appeal to succeed, I have made my decision only on the planning
merits of the case. I am also aware that the London Wildlife Trust Barnet
Group has applied to have Clay Lane included on the Register of Town and
Village Greens. At the time of the Inquiry however, that application had not
been determined. Whilst designation of the Lane as a Village Green may, given
the need to cross the Lane to access the appeal site, have implications for
implementation were the appeal to succeed, I would reiterate that I have made
my decision only on the planning merits of the case.

7. The Council’s Decision Notice sets out two reasons for refusal, one of which
refers to the absence of a formal undertaking to meet additional highway costs
arising from the development and which would secure mitigation proposals
necessary to protect identified species of importance. Such an Undertaking
was, however, submitted to the Inquiry. Accordingly, at the commencement of
the proceedings, it was confirmed that the Council would not be pursuing the
second of the reasons for refusal, subject to appropriate conditions.

Inspector’s Decision

8. For the reasons that follow I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission
for change of use from agricultural land to a cemetery to allow the extension of
the existing cemetery, the creation of one access point across Clay Lane,
associated landscaping, boundary treatments and internal access
arrangements, together with the provision of 8 new staff parking spaces and
the reconfiguration of the existing car park to provide a further 18 parking
spaces, at Edgwarebury Cemetery, Edgwarebury Lane, Barnet, London, in
accordance with the terms of the application, No H/04617/08, dated 12
December 2008, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

Main Issues

9. I consider the main issues in this case to be:

 whether the proposal would be inappropriate development for the purposes

of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2 ‘Green Belts’ and development plan
policy;

2 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

 its effect on the character and appearance of the area and the visual
amenities of the Green Belt;
 its effect on the ecology of the area; and,
 if the development is inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other
considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary
to justify the development.

Reasons for the Decision

10. Edgwarebury Cemetery, which was established in the late 1960s, lies to the
north of Barnet, on the eastern side of Edgwarebury Lane. The Trustees of
Belsize Square Synagogue (the appellant) are one of four Jewish communities1
that bury their dead in distinct areas there. It is accessed directly from
Edgwarebury Lane and incorporates three buildings which provide facilities for
administration and preparing and conducting burials, a prayer room and toilets.
The buildings, together with parking for some 56 vehicles, are located in the
southern corner of the site, close to the road. Burial and remembrance areas
are located throughout the rest of the site, with burial plots spreading out in a
north-easterly direction. The cemetery is bounded by Clay Lane to the north
and east, with Broadfields Junior School directly to the south. The appeal site,
which comprises two fields extending to almost 3 hectares of agricultural land,
lies immediately to the north-east of the existing facility, separated from it by
Clay Lane. Land beyond Clay Lane, including the appeal site, comprises open
farmland that falls away from the Lane which is, in turn, bounded by the M1
motorway and the Thameslink railway line to the north and east.

11. The land comprising the appeal site has, for the last few years, been subject to
a regime of ‘set-aside’, with the consequence that, at the time of the Inquiry, it
had the appearance of rough grassland. It is proposed to change the use of
the land to create an extension to the existing cemetery. The appeal site
would be linked to the existing burial ground via a single access point. The
access would, of necessity, cross Clay Lane. It is also proposed to reconfigure
the existing parking area to increase the amount of parking available on the
site, and to create a small additional area for staff parking immediately to the
north of the existing buildings.

12. The appeal site, the existing cemetery, and the surrounding land, lie within the
Metropolitan Green Belt. The land also lies within an Area of Special
Archaeological Significance, an Area of Special Character, and Watling Chase
Community Forest, all as defined in the Barnet Unitary Development Plan. Clay
Lane is designated as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and is
included as an area (A6) within a larger Tree Preservation Order (TPO)2. The
TPO also includes groups of trees around the perimeter of, and within, the
appeal site (G35, G40, G41 and G93).

Green Belt/Inappropriate Development

13. Planning Policy Guidance 2 ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2) makes it clear that the general
policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in

1
Belsize Square Synagogue, Liberal Judaism, the Spanish & Portuguese (Sephardi) and West London Synagogue
2
The London Borough of Barnet (Bury Farm, Edgwarebury Lane, Edgware) Tree Preservation Order 1978

3 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against

inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be
approved, except in very special circumstances. That presumption is reflected
in policy 3D.9 of the consolidated version of the London Plan3.

14. Both the Council and the appellant are of the view that the proposal does not
comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, with both referring to
paragraph 3.4 of PPG2. That paragraph, however, deals specifically with the
erection of new buildings in the Green Belt, providing examples of buildings
which need not, necessarily, be inappropriate. The development before me
involves only a change in the use of the land and additional hardsurfacing. No
new buildings are proposed. Visitors to the cemetery would continue to use
the existing infrastructure, including the existing buildings, access and parking.

15. Whilst the examples listed at paragraph 3.4 include essential facilities for
cemeteries, that paragraph does not state expressly that cemeteries, as a new
land use, are not inappropriate. Given the nature of the development
proposed, I consider the relevant paragraph of PPG2 under which to consider
the proposal, to be 3.12. This advises that the making of any material change
in the use of land is inappropriate development unless it maintains openness
and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. In
coming to my decision, I am required to have regard, among other things, to
national guidance. On opening the Inquiry, I asked the main parties
particularly to address the provisions of this paragraph with their witnesses,
and I too asked questions on the matter. I am satisfied that the parties had
sufficient opportunity to give consideration to this approach and to address the
Inquiry accordingly.

16. I accept that the use of land for cemetery purposes need not, necessarily,
comprise inappropriate development. Indeed, whilst the advice at paragraph
3.12 is reflected in saved policies O1 and O2 of the Barnet Unitary
Development Plan 2006 (UDP), the explanatory text to policy O2 specifically
states that cemeteries may be acceptable in the Green Belt. I recognise in this
respect, that buildings, which might reduce openness, are not proposed in
connection with the appeal scheme. Neither am I convinced by the Council’s
argument that the planting proposed would harm the openness of this part of
the Green Belt.

17. During my site visit, I saw that the boundaries of the two fields that comprise
the appeal site are lined with remnant hedgerow trees. In addition, I saw that
the boundary with Clay Lane is defined by a well established band of trees,
hedgerows and other vegetation, giving the Lane a very enclosed feel,
notwithstanding filtered views into the appeal site. I recognise that those
views would be more apparent in the winter, when foliage is less dense. I find
however, that the planting proposed would simply reinforce existing boundary
planting, rather than introducing planting where none exists at present. I am
mindful also, that the planting does not, of itself, comprise development. In
coming to this view, I am also aware that the appeal site lies within a
substantial swathe of land in the northern part of the Borough, designated as a
Community Forest (UDP policy O18). That initiative seeks to increase
woodland coverage in the designated area, an area that is, for the most part,

3
The London Plan February 2008 (consolidated with alterations since 2004)

4 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

also within Green Belt. The planting proposed would accord with policy O18, a
policy that, to my mind, does not conflict with the relevant Green Belt policies
and guidance.

18. I do, however, share the concerns of a number of objectors to the proposal,
including the CPRE4, the London Green Belt Council, and others, in relation to
the impact on openness of the memorial stonework associated with proposal. I
am mindful of the proviso in the explanatory text to policy O2 of the UDP that,
whilst cemeteries may be acceptable in the Green Belt, it is important ‘to
ensure that any associated buildings or memorial stones are not detrimental to
the openness of the Green Belt or MOL.’ The appeal site is wholly open at
present, containing no buildings or structures, roads or tracks, with the trees
and hedgerows being confined to the field boundaries. The use of the land as a
cemetery by the Jewish communities that currently use the existing facility,
would involve closely placed plinths, stones and slabs (some 800 plots per acre
on the evidence of the appellant) with narrow strips of grass in between. From
what I saw of the existing cemetery, I am in no doubt that this element of the
proposal would materially reduce the openness of this part of the Green Belt.

19. For similar reasons, I find that the development would encroach into the
countryside, contrary to one of the stated purposes of including land in the
Green Belt. Notwithstanding the position of both the Council and the appellant
on this matter, I am of the view, having regard to the guidance in PPG2 and
the relevant development plan policies with their supporting commentary, that
the proposal comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt in policy
terms.

20. My findings on this matter accord, to some extent, with the reasoning of a
fellow Inspector who reported, in July 1998, to the Secretary of State on an
appeal against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet to
refuse planning permission for the use of land at Barnet Gate Lane, Arkley, as
a cemetery with ancillary chapel and mortuary buildings5. In that case, the
view of the Council, which was favoured by the Inspector, was that whilst the
use of land as a cemetery may be ‘appropriate’ in principle, the specific nature
of the proposal meant that there would be a loss of openness (as well as an
adverse visual impact). That loss of openness derived in part from the nature
of the gravestones and tombs characteristic of Jewish cemeteries. The Council
therefore came to the view, that there are circumstances in which a cemetery
is not an ‘appropriate’ Green Belt use6.

Character and Appearance of the Area and Visual Amenity of the Green Belt

21. I am in no doubt that the development proposed would, over time, result in a
material change to the character and appearance of the appeal site. It would
introduce closely placed memorial stone features across the site, in marked
contrast to its existing open, natural and undeveloped character. It is
important however, to look at the impact of that development on the wider
landscape. Although the existing cemetery is an established facility in the
locality, the accretion of burial stone is not readily seen as an obvious or
intrusive feature in the surrounding area (other than from the air). I also note

4
Council for the Protection of Rural England – now Natural England
5
Appeal Decision No APP/N5090/A/97/288876
6
Paragraphs 7.13 – 7.15 of the previous appeal decision

5 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

that it was no part of the Council’s case that there would be any harm to the
Area of Special Character, or to the aims of the Community Forest. In fact, the
development would, to my mind, make a positive contribution to the over-
arching objective to increase tree cover in the Forest area.

22. The appeal site lies within the urban fringe, a transitional zone where the
Hertfordshire countryside merges with the edge of the London metropolis. The
immediately surrounding area is not notably picturesque and I saw that
traditional management and existing landscape features in the agricultural
landscape are in decline. Elements such as the M1 motorway and London
Gateway service area, the busy Thameslink railway line, and prominent
electricity pylons in close proximity, all have an effect on its perceived
character. On this basis, I agree with the appellant that, in essence, this is not
a landscape that is intrinsically sensitive to further change.

23. When seen from further afield, including from elevated land on the far side of
the railway line and motorway, much of which is heavily wooded, the appeal
site is not a significant or prominent feature, with views filtered not only by the
distance separation involved, but also by existing trees and planting within the
landscape. The appeal scheme includes significant planting and landscaping
around the perimeter of the site, reinforcing old field boundaries, which would
provide additional screening in those views. I consider that what receptors
there are in the wider area, would not experience any material visual change as
a consequence of the appeal proposal. It was generally agreed that the area
that would be most sensitive to change would be Clay Lane.

24. Clay Lane, an ancient green lane, provides a pleasant walk on the urban fringe
between Edgwarebury Lane and Broadfields Avenue, a main distributor road
through the adjacent residential estate. It lies adjacent to, but does not form
part of, the appeal site. At its northern end, the Lane skirts the northern and
eastern boundaries of the existing cemetery. It is roughly 3m in width and is
contained on both sides by mature oak over a wide under-storey of ash,
hawthorn, blackthorn and brambles which, particularly in the summer, give a
‘tunnel’ effect along most of its length and its prevailing character is of a linear
walk bounded by vegetation.

25. The tree stock is undoubtedly an important feature of the local landscape, with
the trees along Clay Lane being located within a Site of Local Importance for
Nature Conservation, and those along the majority of the other boundaries to
the site being covered by a TPO. I consider that the perimeter planting
proposed would contribute to the visual integrity of existing hedgerows and
field boundaries and would reinforce the existing character and appearance of
the area, rather than introducing a new character to the Lane.

26. Policy D13 of the UDP requires that development schemes should retain as
many trees as is practicable, that existing trees and their root systems are
adequately protected during works on site, and that an appropriate level of
new tree and shrub planting is provided. All but one of the existing trees and
hedgerows on the site would be retained, with Plan EDP278/12a illustrating
that the root protection areas of the trees would not be available for burials,
being fenced off and seeded with wildflowers. I find no conflict therefore, with
policy D13.

6 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

27. Moreover, the long term management of those areas, and indeed the site as a
whole, would be secured by the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, the
draft heads of terms for which are set out in the appendices to the evidence of
Mr McInerney. It would include all landscape measures and arboricultural/
ecological monitoring required to bring about the successful delivery,
establishment and ongoing management and maintenance of the proposals
illustrated on plans EDP278/12a and EDP278/37a.

28. The appeal site would be reached from the existing burial ground via a
proposed break of some 3.1m in the existing hedgerow to both sides of Clay
Lane. Given the overall length of the Lane, I find that the break, which does
not involve the felling of any trees, would not harm its established character
and appearance. In addition, the proposed gates, details of which could be
secured by condition, would be set well back from the edges of the Lane, so
they would not be readily apparent to passers-by. The plans also show an area
of planting at the entrance to the appeal site, which would filter and screen
views of the interior of the extension from the Lane at times when the gates
were open. Although not shown on the plans, it was confirmed that a similar
arrangement could also be provided on the opposite side of the Lane at the
corresponding entrance to the existing cemetery.

29. The Crossing Point Management Plan to be submitted would set out the
arrangement for the management of the Clay Lane crossing, to protect the
interests and safety of those using the Lane. With regard to its visual impact, I
am satisfied, given the apparently often wet and muddy nature of the Lane,
that, with the use of appropriate materials, again a matter that could be
secured by condition, it would quickly weather in. As such, the crossing itself
would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area, or its
visual amenity, and it would not materially harm the enjoyment of users of the
byway.

30. There would be no lighting within the appeal site, nor any new buildings.
Moreover, as this is an extension to an existing facility that abuts the Lane, it is
not a totally new land use to the area. The existing cemetery is well screened,
without that screening being oppressive or restrictive in any way. In my view,
the perimeter planting proposed would make a significant contribution to the
visual integrity of the existing hedgerows and field boundaries, and would
similarly filter views into the appeal site. The development would not, in my
opinion, result in any material change to the character or appearance of the
Clay Lane, nor would it harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt as
perceived by users of the Lane.

31. With regard to other elements of the proposal, although the development
would be unlikely to increase the frequency or intensity of funerals at
Edgwarebury, and no increase in staff is anticipated, the existing parking
arrangement is of poor quality and is, at times, inadequate, resulting in
vehicles double parking within the site and/or increasing pressure for on-street
parking in the adjacent residential area. As a consequence, it is proposed to
reconfigure and re-surface the existing car park, to enable the provision of an
additional 18 spaces. Eight new dedicated staff parking spaces are also
proposed on an area of sloping area that is enclosed by existing buildings and
fencing. None of these works would have any material impact on the character

7 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

or appearance of the area and would cause no harm to the visual amenity of
the Green Belt.

32. Development on the appeal site would take place very gradually, over many
years, giving time for the landscaping and planting to mature and take effect
before any possible impact from use of the land as a cemetery is likely to
become apparent. I recognise that the character and appearance of the appeal
site itself would change over time and to that extent, there would be some
localised harm. All in all however, I conclude that the recreational enjoyment
of users of the Lane, and the ‘taste of the countryside’ that it provides, would
not be harmed to any material degree, and the availability of strongly filtered
views into the appeal site in winter and what would amount to closed views in
the summer, means that there would be little, if any, harm to the overall
character and appearance of the area, or to the visual amenities of the Green
Belt. There would be no conflict therefore with PPG2, or saved policies
GBEnv1, GBEnv4, D2 and D13 of the UDP.

Ecology

33. Although not a reason for refusal, a number of objectors, some of whom gave
evidence to the Inquiry, raised concerns in relation to the effect of the proposal
on the ecological interest of the site. Much of that concern appears to be based
on a belief that a significant number of trees on the site would be felled or
otherwise threatened by the proposal. As confirmed already, with the possible
exception of a single dead specimen, it is not intended to remove any tree
within or adjacent to the appeal site.

34. The site is not covered by, nor does it lie adjacent to, any international,
national or local statutory designations so far as ecology is concerned. Clay
Lane however, is a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation, a non-
statutory designation. Having regard to the citation, it appears to have been
designated due the range of tree and shrub species, and interesting
herbaceous plants. With regard to the ecological value of the appeal site itself,
I understand that the fields have reverted to grassland within the last four
years. The most notable habitats, therefore, are the hedgerows and trees
along the boundary with Clay Lane, and the mature trees along the other
boundaries, associated with now defunct hedgerows.

35. The parallel hedgerows along Clay Lane are likely to fulfil the ecological criteria
for ‘important’ hedgerows as defined by the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. To
facilitate the proposed Clay Lane crossing, only 3.1m of the hedgerow would be
removed along the boundary of the appeal site, with a corresponding length
removed within the opposite boundary. No hedgerow trees would be affected
and the tree canopy above the gaps would be retained. Given the overall
length of the hedgerow along Clay Lane, I consider the loss proposed to be
insignificant. In any event, it is proposed to re-instate some 400m of new
hedgerow around the appeal site, which would more than compensate for the
loss.

36. There is confirmed bat activity on the appeal site, although no roosts have
been identified. Legal protection for bats is provided primarily through the EU
Habitats Directive7, which is transposed in the UK through the Conservation
7
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

8 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

Regulations8 2010. On the basis of the evidence presented to me, I consider it

highly unlikely that any illegal act with respect to bats would occur as a
consequence of the development proposed. In addition, ongoing management
of the tree stock in future years, pursuant to the Landscape and Ecology
Management Plan, would ensure that it could continue to support the ecological
interest of the area.

37. Although I understand that a hobby falcon is nesting in the vicinity, the
appellant’s most recent survey (Document 11) found no evidence of any nest
on the appeal site. The species is not of any conservation concern regionally or
nationally, and neither is it listed as a priority species in either the national or
local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). It is, however, listed at Schedule 1 to
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The only likely effect,
consequential upon the development proposed, would be from the activity
associated with the creation of the new access onto Clay Lane and from the
additional planting and erection of fencing. Any disturbance could be mitigated
by sensitive timing of the works, a matter that could be addressed by condition
were the appeal to succeed.

38. Slow worms are afforded protection from intentional and reckless killing and
injury under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In addition, whilst not listed in
the London BAP, the slow worm is listed as a priority species in the national
BAP. Due to the structural characteristics of the sward within the appeal site,
the grassland habitat is unlikely to support any significant reptile population,
with the most recent survey (Document 11) finding no evidence of such.
Nonetheless, I consider that the cemetery extension proposed could be
conducive to habitat continuity, a matter that could be addressed by condition.

39. I understand there to be a badger sett within 750m of the appeal site, although
surveys of the site revealed no evidence of badger use. At such a distance,
there is unlikely to be any immediate impact on that badger clan. Moreover,
the sett is separated from the appeal site by the M1 motorway. Accordingly
even if did form part of the badgers’ territory, I have no reason to suppose that
it is likely to be a significant or critical element of the area. In any event, as
noted earlier, the land use change would be so gradual that in the unlikely
event that foraging territory is lost, the badgers would have time to adapt and
its population status would not be threatened.

40. With regard to local flora, I understand that none of the species referred to by
local enthusiasts as being present on the appeal site, is of particular note.
None is listed in Schedule B of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in the UK
BAP priority species, or in the London BAP species. All species identified
appear to be widespread throughout the UK and do not present a material
planning constraint to development of the appeal site.

41. A considerable amount of Inquiry time was spent on the matter of ecology. I
am satisfied, based on the detailed information that is before me that there
would be no material harm to the ecology of the area, subject to appropriate
conditions and the submission and implementation of a Landscape and Ecology
Management Plan. I find no conflict in this respect with national guidance in
Planning Policy Statement 9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’, policies

8
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

9 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

3D.14 and 3D.15 of the consolidated London Plan, and saved policies O17, D14
and D15 of the UDP.

Other Considerations

42. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. PPG2
makes it clear that such development should not be approved, except in very
special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate
development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and
any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

43. The principle argument in support of the appeal is the urgent and pressing
need for additional cemetery space for at least two of the communities (Belsize
Square Synagogue and Liberal Judaism) that use Edgwarebury Cemetery.
Burial space for those groups will run out in the very near future. The urgency
for space for the other two groups is less pressing, but run out it will.

44. Policy CS15 of the UDP states that the Council will seek to identify appropriate
sites for cemeteries and crematoria to meet the needs of the community, the
supporting text acknowledging that only a limited amount of burial space is
available to meet local needs. It goes on to state that the Council will seek to
ensure that adequate provision is made in Barnet to meet the burial needs of
all sections of the community. In addition, policy 3D.19 of the London Plan
requires that DPD policies should make provision for London’s burial needs,
including the special needs of certain religious or cultural groups for whom
burial is the only option. It adds that provision should be based on the
principle of proximity to local communities.

45. Notwithstanding the thrust of those policies, I was advised that there has been
no thorough assessment of burial space in London for more than ten years, the
latest document being a 1997 report by the LPAC9 entitled ‘Burial Needs in
London’ and that Barnet Council has undertaken no consultation on how to
meet the burial needs of the local community. I was also made aware that the
emerging Core Strategy fails to identify appropriate sites. In the absence of
any overall framework for meeting the burial and cremation needs of the local
community, applications remain to be determined on an ad hoc basis.

46. It was confirmed in cross-examination, that no robust search had been

undertaken by the appellant for any alternative to the proposed extension. In
the alternative however, there was no suggestion by either the Council, or
other objectors, of a more appropriate site that is currently available, or likely
to become available in the near future. In coming to a view on this, I
recognise that the specific criteria for any new cemetery to meet the needs of
the Jewish communities in the Barnet area would have significant implications
in terms of the availability and suitability of any alternative location.

47. Based on the existing facility at Edgwarebury, any site would need to be at
least 4 hectares in size. I agree with the appellant that any site of that size
within the urban area, even if it existed, given that development land in north
London is at a premium, would, in all likelihood, be the subject of competing
demands either for housing, commerce or industry and, as a consequence,

9
The London Planning Advisory Committee

10 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

would be prohibitively expensive. Thus, any financially viable alternative would

need to be located on a greenfield site, beyond the urban area.

48. Furthermore, with the proximity principle in mind, as set out in policy 3D.19 of
the London Plan, and given the extent of the Green Belt and the Area of Special
Character in Barnet, I have no reason to suppose that any local greenfield site
would be any less sensitive than the appeal site in policy terms. Indeed, a
separate site, as opposed to the proposed extension could, arguably, be more
challenging with regard to Green Belt policy, since it would require its own new,
essential facilities, including access and car parking and a substantial services
building (assuming that it would be equivalent to the existing facility).
Although PPG2 and local development plan policies look favourably on essential
cemetery buildings (even were the new use of land as a cemetery accepted as
not inappropriate development) such buildings would, in all likelihood, have a
greater impact on the openness and visual qualities of the Green Belt than the
development the subject of this appeal, which would utilise existing facilities.
49. Objectors suggested that any search should look further afield, possibly beyond
the Green Belt, or in neighbouring authorities, but those locations would fail
the proximity test set out in the London Plan. Furthermore, there is no
guarantee that any such site would be preferable in terms of any impact on the
character or visual amenity of its locality. I also bear I mind that, traditionally,
the Jewish community wish to be buried with, or close to, their loved ones. A
facility in a different location would sever future generations from the past.
50. If the appeal were to fail, the Belsize Square Synagogue and Liberal Judaism
communities face a fundamental problem in finding appropriate, proximate
facilities in which to bury their dead. It was confirmed during the Inquiry, that
every effort had been made to maximise use of the existing space, including
burials in depth and in shared graves. It is not possible for the different
communities to ‘share’ their respective space for religious reasons. The Jewish
religious community is not a single entity - it ranges from the orthodox to the
more liberal. Whilst the four communities at Edgwarebury work well together,
that is only within the bounds of what the individual religious practices allow.
It was confirmed that the Belsize Square Synagogue and Liberal Judaism do
not have access to other land within the cemetery.
51. In reaching an overall balance, I must give substantial weight to the policy
presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I have
found that the development proposed would affect the openness of the Green
Belt and the purposes of including land in it. To this must be added the harm,
albeit very limited, to the character and appearance of the area and to the
visual amenity of the Green Belt. It seems to me, however, that an alternative
to meet the undisputed needs of the appellant is highly unlikely to be feasible,
either in terms of availability to the appellant, or in terms of policy restrictions.
On the contrary, there are specific benefits to the appeal site, in that there is
no need for additional infrastructure or buildings, and given the extensive
planting proposed, which would make a positive contribution toward the
objectives of the Community Forest. I am satisfied that the combination of
these considerations is compelling and that they clearly outweigh the harm by
reason of inappropriateness and the other identified harm, and amount to the
very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

11 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

Unilateral Undertaking and Conditions

52. I have considered the Unilateral Undertaking, and the conditions suggested, in
the light of comments made at the Inquiry and the advice in Circulars 11/95
and 5/2005. In the event that the appeal should succeed, the Undertaking
secures the payment of £60,000 towards the initial construction and ongoing
maintenance of the crossing point on Clay Lane, and the submission and
implementation of a Landscaping and Ecology Management Plan and a Crossing
Management Plan. It also secures the payment of a contribution towards the
monitoring of the Undertaking by the Council.
53. Given the value of the tree stock on the site to both character and appearance,
and the ecology of the area, and the ongoing and long-term nature of the
development the subject of this appeal, the provision of a Landscape and
Ecology Management Plan is a necessity. The Crossing Management Plan is
required to ensure that there would be no conflict between users of Clay Lane,
a public right of way, and users of the proposed crossing.
54. Having regard to the tests set out in Circular 5/2005, I consider that the
provisions set out in the Undertaking are relevant and necessary to the
development proposed.
55. Moving on to conditions, it was agreed that a number of those originally
suggested would be better addressed through the respective Management
Plans referred to. It is necessary, however, in addition to the standard time
limit on commencement of development, to list the plans to which the
permission relates, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper
planning. Conditions are also necessary to ensure that the Management Plans
referred to above are submitted to and approved by the Council prior to
commencement of development, and that development is carried out in
accordance with the provisions of those Plans, in the combined interests of
protecting and enhancing the character and appearance of the area, the visual
amenity of the Green Belt, and local ecological interests, and in the interest of
highway safety.
56. Conditions requiring a detailed specification for any tree pruning/felling, a
scheme of soft and hard landscaping, and to ensure that any retained or new
trees/shrubs are replaced, are necessary to protect and enhance the character
and appearance of the area, the visual amenity of the Green Belt and the
ecology of the area. For the same reason, it is important that no lighting is
installed on the site. In the interest of visual amenity, a condition is required
to ensure that any gates, fences, or other means of enclosure are agreed prior
to erection.
57. It is necessary to restrict the creation of any future access points in order to
minimise inconvenience to users of Clay Lane, to ensure the safety of those
using Clay Lane and those using the crossing, and to protect the ecological
habitat value of the site and the character and appearance of the area. For the
same reasons, conditions are necessary to ensure that the appellant enters into
an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 prior to the
commencement of development, that the crossing is sited, constructed and
drained in accordance with details to be submitted, including details of timing
of the works, and to limit the types of vehicle that may use the crossing. With
regard to the alterations to the existing car park and addition of new staff

12 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

parking spaces, conditions are necessary, in the interest of highway safety and
visual amenity, to secure details of drainage and surfacing for the parking
areas to ensure that those works are carried out prior to first use of the
cemetery extension.
58. The evidence of Dr Rowlands includes a condition to secure a reptile strategy
for the site. Such a condition is necessary in my opinion, given the importance
of the slow worm, and the need to ensure that the appeal site would remain
conducive to habitat continuity. A condition was also suggested requiring, prior
to the felling or pruning of any tree on the site, the confirmation of an ecologist
that the works would not affect the conservation status of any protected
species. Although I have found that the initial development would be unlikely
to cause any harm to protected species, subject to conditions, I recognise that
dependent upon when this permission might be implemented, some time could
have elapsed since the various wildlife surveys were carried out. In my
opinion, this is a matter that would be better addressed in the Landscape and
Ecology Management Plan, which would be submitted prior to the
commencement of any development on the site.
Conclusion
59. For the reasons set above, I conclude on balance that the appeal should
succeed.

Jennifer A Vyse
INSPECTOR

13 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

S White - of counsel Instructed by Savills

He called
D P McInerney BSc(Hons), Partner with The Environmental Dimension
MLD, CMLI Partnership
Dr R Rowlands BSC(Hons), Partner and ecologist with The Environmental
PhD, MIEEM, CEnv Dimension Partnership
M Derbyshire BA(Hons), Planning Director with Savills
MRTPI
Rabbi D Rich Chief Executive of Liberal Judaism
F Martin FCA Chairman of the Burial Society of the Spanish
and Portuguese Jews Congregation
S M Bruck Belsize Square Synagogue
K Conway Belsize Square Synagogue

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

A Booth - of counsel Instructed by Mrs C Hayes, solicitor to the Council

He called
C Townsend Principal Planner with the Council

INTERESTED PERSONS OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSAL:

Councillor H Rayner Council of the London Borough of Barnet

Dr S O Natelson On behalf of the Barnet Group of the London Wildlife Trust
C Cohen On behalf of the Barnet Group of the London Wildlife Trust
R Husband On behalf of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Mrs F Broom

INTERESTED PERSONS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSAL:

Councillor B Coleman Councillor and Member of the London Assembly

Rabbi R Mariner Belsize Square Synagogue
Rabbi A Goldstein Northwood and Pinner Liberal Synagogue
Rabbi P Tobias The Liberal Synagogue Elstree
J Morris
P Summerfield
Professor E Moonan
R Miller
P Berger
H Kuttner
J D Phillip
J Livingston
Mrs O Gilbert
Professor M Streat

14 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

DOCUMENTS HANDED IN DURING THE INQUIRY

1 Council’s letter of notification

2 Bundle of third party letters in support of the proposed development
3 Draft copy of Unilateral Undertaking
4 Policy 3D.19 Burial Space (London Plan)
5 Note of meeting 10 June 2009
6 Documentation referred to in Mr Cohen’s representations
7 Page 3 of Appeal Decision No APP/N5090/A/97/288876
8 Appearances for the appellant
9 Opening submissions on behalf of the appellant
10 Rebuttal Statement of Dr Natelson
11 Hobby, reptile and bat survey (2010) – Dr Rowlands
12 UDP policies O18 and CS15
13 Written statement of Mr Husband
14 Dr Natelson’s summary
15 Morge v Hampshire County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 608
16 Supplementary evidence of Dr Rowland relating to the legal status of flora
and fauna present on the appeal site
17 Signed and dated Unilateral Undertaking
18 Suggested conditions
19A Edits to conditions 1 July 2010
19B Edits to conditions 2 July 2010
20 Closing submissions by Mr Husband
21 Closing submissions by Dr Natelson
22 Closing submissions on behalf of the Council
23 Closing submissions on behalf of the appellant
24 Written application for Costs on behalf of the appellant

PLANS

A Application plans (246 01A Site Survey sheet 1 of 2 and 246 02 Site
Survey sheet 2 of 2, 2125-SK-04, SV1 and SV2 site location plans,
2125/101RevM, 2125/SK05 Rev D, LHPL 132993/L003, LHPL
132993\L\004\Rev.i , LHPL 132993\L\009\Rev.c and LHPL
132993\L\010\rev.a)
B Plans EDP278/12a and EDP278/37a (Proof Plans L4 and L5 in Volume
2 of the evidence of Mr McInerney)
C Plan showing the site of the Arkley appeal.

15 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

Schedule of Conditions attached to

Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850
Edgwarebury Cemetery, Edgwarebury Lane, Barnet, London

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in
accordance with the following approved plans: 2125-SK-04, 2125/101M,
2125/SK05D, LHPL 132993/L003, and EDP278/12a and EDP278/37a
(Proof Plans L4 and L5 respectively, in Volume 2 of the evidence of Mr
McInerney).
3) No works in connection with the development hereby permitted, including
any site preparation works, shall commence until a Landscape and
Ecology Management Plan for the site, based on the draft heads of terms
at Appendix L3 to the evidence of Mr McInerney, has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development
shall be carried out only in accordance with such approved Plan.
4) No works, including preparatory works, relating to the Clay Lane crossing
hereby permitted, shall commence until a Crossing Management Plan has
been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority.
Once constructed, the crossing shall thereafter be operated in accordance
with the Crossing Management Plan.
5) No development or other operations in connection with the cemetery
extension hereby permitted shall commence until a detailed tree
felling/pruning specification, in accordance with the provisions of the
Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Tree felling and
pruning works undertaken on the site shall be carried out in full
accordance with the approved specification.
6) A scheme of hard and soft landscaping in accordance with the principles
shown on plan Nos EDP 278/12a and 278/37a, including details of all
trees and hedgerows to be retained and the methods and precautions to
be employed to minimise damage during the erection of fencing, gates or
other means of enclosure and construction of the Clay Lane crossing,
shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning
authority prior to commencement of development.
7) All work comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping, shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of
the cemetery extension hereby permitted. Thereafter, it shall be
managed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the
Landscape and Ecology Management Plan.
8) Any existing tree shown as being retained, or any trees or shrubs to be
planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme, which are removed,
die, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in
accordance with the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan.
9) Prior to commencement of development, details of all fences, gates and
other means of enclosure, in line with the principles illustrated on plan

16 of 17
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

Nos EDP 278/12a and 278/37a, shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority. Any gate, fence or other means
of enclosure shall be erected in accordance with the approved details.
10) Prior to commencement of development, a reptile strategy for the site
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority. Development shall be carried out only in accordance with
approved strategy.
11) No lighting shall be installed or provided within the cemetery extension
hereby permitted.
12) No access points, either vehicular or pedestrian, shall be formed or
created from either the existing cemetery or the extension hereby
permitted, other than as shown on plan No EDP 278/12a.
13) No development shall take place until an agreement is place, under the
provisions of Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, to construct the Clay
Lane crossing hereby permitted in accordance with the arrangement
shown on drawing No 2125/SK05 Rev D.
14) No works, including preparatory works, relating to the Clay Lane crossing
hereby permitted, shall commence until details of its exact siting,
associated drainage works and construction details, including the timing
of the works, and surfacing, have been submitted to, and agreed in
writing by, the local planning authority. The crossing shall be provided in
accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the cemetery
extension hereby approved.
15) In addition to permitted users of Clay Lane, the crossing of Clay Lane at
the permitted point shall be limited to golf buggies, motorised
wheelchairs, a mini digger and maintenance vehicles. The maximum
weight of any vehicle shall not exceed 5 tonnes.
16) Prior to commencement of development, details of the drainage and
surfacing of the parking areas shown on plan No 2125/101M shall be
submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The
spaces shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to
first use of the cemetery hereby approved.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
.

17 of 17