Dacorum councillors are asked on 10 September whether to stop defending the Tring refusal. The developer wants full costs at the 10 November inquiry.

Dacorum councillors will be asked on Thursday 10 September whether the council should stop fighting the appeal against its own refusal of up to 1,400 homes east of Tring.

The committee refused the scheme in April, against its officers’ advice. A report published for Thursday’s meeting sets out how a new national planning rulebook, published on 17 August, has shifted the balance in the developer’s favour. It also carries a blunt warning: the appellant has told the inspector it intends to apply for a full award of costs against the council.

The inquiry opens on 10 November 2026. Its Planning Inspectorate reference is 6009233.

What was refused

Application 25/01880/MOA went to the Development Management Committee on 16 April 2026. Officers recommended it be delegated for approval. Members refused it, and the decision notice was issued on 21 April with seven reasons.

The scheme covers:

  • up to 1,400 homes, including up to 140 extra-care units
  • 50 per cent affordable housing, against a policy requirement of 35 per cent
  • a primary school and a secondary school
  • a local centre and a sports and community hub
  • about 64.29 hectares of open space, against a requirement of roughly six
  • at least 5.8 hectares of outdoor sports space, against a Fields in Trust requirement of 5.6
  • a minimum 40 per cent biodiversity net gain

Only the first reason for refusal was about the merits. Members found the land strongly serves a Green Belt purpose, is not “grey belt”, and that the benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm. Reasons two to seven were all about legal agreements that had not been signed on the day of the decision.

What the new rulebook changed

A revised National Planning Policy Framework replaced the December 2024 version on 17 August. Officers have gone back through the April balance against it.

Three benefits move up from limited weight to substantial weight:

  • schools and educational facilities
  • community facilities
  • recreational and sporting facilities

The report states plainly that no harm previously identified gained weight. The substantial weight given to Green Belt harm is unchanged, as is the weight on the Chilterns National Landscape, heritage, landscape character and the loss of farmland. The grey belt test and the very special circumstances test are themselves unchanged.

One thing did move against the developer. A new policy, GB7(1)(h), means the part of the site within a reasonable walk of Tring station would no longer count as inappropriate development in the Green Belt at all. But the same closeness to the station triggers a separate new rule, Policy L3, which sets a minimum density of 45 homes per hectare there. The submitted parameter plan proposes 25 to 35 in its lower-density areas and 30 to 40 in its higher-density ones. Neither reaches 45.

As the officers put it, the station relationship “which potentially assists the proposal in Green Belt terms simultaneously gives rise to the requirement to achieve a materially higher residential density”.

The costs warning

A case management conference chaired by the appeal inspector was held on 25 August. The appellant confirmed it intends to seek a full award of costs against the council.

Officers set out the rule. Costs can be awarded where a council has behaved unreasonably, and government guidance treats “unreasonably defending an appeal and pursuing reasons for refusal which are not supported by sufficient evidence” as an example of that. Departing from officer advice is not in itself unreasonable. Maintaining a reason for refusal that cannot then be substantiated at the inquiry can be.

The report is careful to add that the money is not a planning consideration. It must not influence how members weigh the merits. Officers cite the Court of Appeal in East Bergholt Parish Council v Babergh District Council.

Officers make no recommendation either way. They put the question to members and leave it there.

The other six reasons are already dissolving

Since April the council, Hertfordshire County Council and the appellant have carried on drafting the legal agreements that reasons two to seven were about. Those cover:

  • the Chilterns Beechwoods special area of conservation
  • social infrastructure, including schools and health
  • affordable housing
  • transport and highway measures

Officers say that if those obligations are secured before the appeal is determined, those six reasons “would no longer need to be pursued by the Council at the appeal”.

On the numbers, the council’s housing land supply has moved from about 1.03 years in April to 1.18 years. The five-year requirement is unchanged.

Timeline of the Land East of Tring decision, from the April 2026 refusal to the November 2026 inquiry
Key dates in the Land East of Tring case. Sources: Dacorum Borough Council committee report, 10 September 2026; appeals update, August 2026.
Share this chartFacebookWhatsAppX

The Local Plan is running on a separate track

The same land is proposed for allocation in Dacorum’s emerging Local Plan as policy TR03. On 14 July the examination inspectors wrote to the council saying they had not been shown a robust comparative assessment justifying an allocation of that size in that place. On 31 July the council confirmed it would supply the further evidence they asked for.

The council still believes the site is right in principle for 1,400 homes and that exceptional circumstances exist for taking it out of the Green Belt. That position, argued at the examination, sits awkwardly beside the refusal it is defending at the inquiry. Our Hemel Hempstead planning page sets out the inspectors’ letter in full.

Also before the committee on Thursday

  • 24 Little Road, Hemel Hempstead HP2 5EN (25/02075/FUL): change of use of one house to a small residential care home.
  • The August appeals update. Five appeals were lodged between 1 and 26 August: 65 High Street, Markyate (two, planning and listed building consent); the flat at 13 Mark Road, Hemel Hempstead; 21 Basildon Square, Hemel Hempstead; and 26 Ridge Lea, Hemel Hempstead.
  • Of 34 appeals decided in Dacorum so far in 2026, 23 were dismissed, nine were allowed and two were part allowed. One of those decided appeals arose from a committee decision made against the officer recommendation, and it was allowed.

Two more inquiries are listed as upcoming: Land East of Tring on 10 November, and Marsworth Airfield at Lukes Lane, Gubblecote, with no date yet. A hearing is also expected on land west of Blegberry Gardens, Shootersway, Berkhamsted.

What it means for you

If the committee resolves not to defend reason one, the Green Belt case against 1,400 homes east of Tring stops being argued by the council at November’s inquiry. The inspector would still decide the appeal, and other parties can make their own case, but the authority that refused it would no longer be the one opposing it.

If members hold their position, the council defends a refusal that its own officers have just told them the new framework has weakened, with a costs application already flagged.

Practical points:

  • The meeting is at 7pm on Thursday 10 September in the Council Chamber at The Forum, Marlowes, Hemel Hempstead HP1 1DN. Committee meetings are held in public and this one is timed to finish by 10.30pm.
  • The council’s speaking rules apply to planning applications on the agenda. Speakers get three minutes, or five shared if more than one person wants to speak on the same application. You must tell Member Support by 5pm on Wednesday 9 September, on 01442 228209 or at Member.support@dacorum.gov.uk. Item 7 is a report on the council’s stance in an appeal, not an application being determined. Ask Member Support what applies before turning up expecting to speak on it.
  • Tring station’s service frequency is what triggers the higher density rule. If you want to know what actually runs from there, see our train times to London page.
  • Nothing here changes what a home in Dacorum currently costs. The latest Land Registry figures are on our house prices page.

We will report what the committee decides.

Sources