Planning application · Barnet
24/0966/FUL.
Land Adjacent To 11 Arkley Lane Barnet EN5
Full / Other Planning at Land Adjacent To 11 Arkley Lane Barnet EN5, received 8 Mar 2024 — refused on 3 May 2024 (delegated, Mansoor Cohen).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationBarnet profile →
Refused
Outcome
3 May 2024
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
14
Documents
14 linked
4
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Barnet planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Use of land for equine purposes, and erection of associated stables, support barn, sand school, trackways, fencing and new access onto Arkley Lane
Reference
24/0966/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
8 Mar 2024
Target date
3 May 2024
Decision date
3 May 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
24/0966/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 14 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
8 Mar 2024
Target date
3 May 2024
Decision date
3 May 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Barnet portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 3 May 2024, delegated decision by Mansoor Cohen — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
8 Mar 2024
Application received
3 May 2024
Statutory target date
3 May 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Mansoor Cohen
8 Mar 2024
Application received
3 May 2024
Statutory target date
3 May 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Mansoor Cohen
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, including the new access point and hardstanding,
would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt or to safeguard the
countryside from encroachment and consequently constitute as inappropriate
development. No case for very special circumstances has been demonstrated to
outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or any
other harm identified. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies CS NPPF,
CS1 and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2012), Policies
DM01and DM15 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD
(September 2012), Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) and Section 13 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
2
Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the impact of the proposed
development on protected species and biodiversity. In the absence of such
ecological information, the Local Planning Authority are unable to properly assess
its impact in accordance with its duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment
and Rural Communities Act 2006 and it is considered that the proposed
development could cause undue harm to specially-protected species and wildlife
and fail to secure net biodiversity gain, contrary to Policy G6 of the London Plan
(2021) and Policies DM01 and DM16 of the Local Plan: Development Management
Policies DPD (2012).
1
The proposed development, including the new access point and hardstanding,
would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt or to safeguard the
countryside from encroachment and consequently constitute as inappropriate
development. No case for very special circumstances has been demonstrated to
outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or any
other harm identified. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies CS NPPF,
CS1 and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (September 2012), Policies
DM01and DM15 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD
(September 2012), Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) and Section 13 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (2021).
2
Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the impact of the proposed
development on protected species and biodiversity. In the absence of such
ecological information, the Local Planning Authority are unable to properly assess
its impact in accordance with its duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment
and Rural Communities Act 2006 and it is considered that the proposed
development could cause undue harm to specially-protected species and wildlife
and fail to secure net biodiversity gain, contrary to Policy G6 of the London Plan
(2021) and Policies DM01 and DM16 of the Local Plan: Development Management
Policies DPD (2012).
Policies cited
CS1CS7DM15G2National Planning Policy Framework 13NPPFG6DM01DM16
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
4
In support
0
Total comments
4
Objections
4
In support
0
Total comments
4
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.