Appeal Decision
Inquiry opened on 29 June 2010Site visit made on 30 June 2010
by Jennifer Vyse
DipTP DipPBM MRTPI
The Planning Inspectorate4/11 Eagle WingTemple Quay House2 The SquareTemple QuayBristol BS1 6PN
0117 372 6372email:enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of Statefor Communities and Local Government
Decision date:12 August 2010
Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/A/10/2122850Edgwarebury Cemetery, Edgwarebury Lane, Barnet, London HA8
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against arefusal to grant planning permission.
•
The appeal is made by the Trustees of Belsize Square Synagogue against the decision of theCouncil of the London Borough of Barnet.
•
The application No H/04617/08, dated 12 December 2008, was refused by a notice dated 13October 2009.
•
The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘Change of use fromagricultural land to a cemetery to allow extension of existing Edgwarebury Lane Cemetery.Creation of three access points across Clay Lane. Associated landscaping, boundarytreatments, internal access arrangements and the reconfiguration of existing car park toprovide 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 theCouncil. 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. Thesite visit, which was undertaken on an accompanied basis, took place on theafternoon of the second day.3.
Subsequent to submission of the application to the Council in 2008, andfollowing a lengthy period of negotiation, the scheme was amended such thatthe 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 thepossible exception of a single dead specimen, would need to be felled. At thestart of the Inquiry, it was requested that I consider further revised planscontained within the proof of Mr McInerney (Listed as Plan B).4.
Those opposing the development objected to the substitution on the basis thatthe scheme was materially different from that considered by the planningcommittee. The objection was based on the belief that the plans presented tothe committee proposed the felling of a significant number of trees, whereasthe revised plans show retention of all but one. However, notwithstanding thatthe first reason for refusal includes reference to potential loss of trees andhedgerows, the plans agreed as comprising those on which the Council’sdecision was based clearly show (with the exception already referred to) that itwas not intended to fell any trees and neither, other than a short stretch tofacilitate the proposed access, would any hedgerow be removed. It was alsore-confirmed by both the appellant and the Council (and it is apparent from thecommittee report) that the scheme before the committee did not involve thefelling of trees. On the contrary, it showed significant additional planting of trees and hedgerows.
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/21228502 of 17
5.
The revised plans provide amended information in relation to the planting andseeding proposals, and to landscape and ecology management, the maindifferences being that the planting scheme is extended around the whole of theappeal site, as opposed to around only the southern part, and it includes rootprotection areas for the retained trees which would be permanently fenced off and seeded with wild flowers. I am satisfied that the amendments are notmaterially different from the scheme considered by Members and that noparties’ interest would be prejudiced were I to accept them as a substitution. Ishall proceed on this basis.6.
The proposal involves works to Clay Lane, a former ‘Road used as a PublicPath’, now a restricted byway. Were the appeal to succeed, the byway wouldneed to be closed off for a temporary period whilst works to create a formalcrossing are carried out. That can only be achieved by way of a TrafficRegulation Order under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.In addition, a separate consent would be required from the Highway Authorityfor the works. Whilst these matters may have implications for implementationwere the appeal to succeed, I have made my decision only on the planningmerits of the case. I am also aware that the London Wildlife Trust BarnetGroup has applied to have Clay Lane included on the Register of Town andVillage Greens. At the time of the Inquiry however, that application had notbeen determined. Whilst designation of the Lane as a Village Green may, giventhe need to cross the Lane to access the appeal site, have implications forimplementation were the appeal to succeed, I would reiterate that I have mademy decision only on the planning merits of the case.7.
The Council’s Decision Notice sets out two reasons for refusal, one of whichrefers to the absence of a formal undertaking to meet additional highway costsarising from the development and which would secure mitigation proposalsnecessary to protect identified species of importance. Such an Undertakingwas, however, submitted to the Inquiry. Accordingly, at the commencement of the proceedings, it was confirmed that the Council would not be pursuing thesecond 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 permissionfor 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 accessarrangements, together with the provision of 8 new staff parking spaces andthe reconfiguration of the existing car park to provide a further 18 parkingspaces, at Edgwarebury Cemetery, Edgwarebury Lane, Barnet, London, inaccordance with the terms of the application, No H/04617/08, dated 12December 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 purposesof Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2 ‘Green Belts’ and development planpolicy;
Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/21228503 of 17
its effect on the character and appearance of the area and the visualamenities 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 otherconsiderations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessaryto justify the development.
Reasons for the Decision
10.
Edgwarebury Cemetery, which was established in the late 1960s, lies to thenorth of Barnet, on the eastern side of Edgwarebury Lane. The Trustees of Belsize Square Synagogue (the appellant) are one of four Jewish communities
1
that bury their dead in distinct areas there. It is accessed directly fromEdgwarebury Lane and incorporates three buildings which provide facilities foradministration and preparing and conducting burials, a prayer room and toilets.The buildings, together with parking for some 56 vehicles, are located in thesouthern corner of the site, close to the road. Burial and remembrance areasare located throughout the rest of the site, with burial plots spreading out in anorth-easterly direction. The cemetery is bounded by Clay Lane to the northand 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 byClay Lane. Land beyond Clay Lane, including the appeal site, comprises openfarmland that falls away from the Lane which is, in turn, bounded by the M1motorway 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 toa regime of ‘set-aside’, with the consequence that, at the time of the Inquiry, ithad 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 sitewould be linked to the existing burial ground via a single access point. Theaccess would, of necessity, cross Clay Lane. It is also proposed to reconfigurethe existing parking area to increase the amount of parking available on thesite, and to create a small additional area for staff parking immediately to thenorth of the existing buildings.12.
The appeal site, the existing cemetery, and the surrounding land, lie within theMetropolitan Green Belt. The land also lies within an Area of SpecialArchaeological Significance, an Area of Special Character, and Watling ChaseCommunity Forest, all as defined in the Barnet Unitary Development Plan. ClayLane is designated as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and isincluded as an area (A6) within a larger Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
2
. TheTPO also includes groups of trees around the perimeter of, and within, theappeal site (G35, G40, G41 and G93).
Green Belt/Inappropriate Development
13.
Planning Policy Guidance 2 ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2) makes it clear that the generalpolicies 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
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
