2122850 Decision

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

1/17

Appeal DecisionInquiry opened on 29 June 2010

Site visit made on 30 June 2010

by Jennifer Vyse DipTP DipPBM MRTPI

The Planning Inspectorate

4/11 Eagle WingTemple Quay House

2 The SquareTemple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

0117 372 6372

email:[email protected]

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

for Communities and Local Government

Decision date:

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 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, boundary

treatments, 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 the

possible 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 to

the committee proposed the felling of a significant number of trees, whereasthe revised plans show retention of all but one. However, notwithstanding that

the first reason for refusal includes reference to potential loss of trees andhedgerows, the plans agreed as comprising those on which the Councilsdecision 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 to

facilitate the proposed access, would any hedgerow be removed. It was alsore-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 oftrees and hedgerows.

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

2/17

Appeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

2 of 17

5. The revised plans provide amended information in relation to the planting andseeding proposals, and to landscape and ecology management, the main

differences 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 offand seeded with wild flowers. I am satisfied that the amendments are not

materially different from the scheme considered by Members and that noparties 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 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 Traffic

Regulation 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 implementation

were 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 and

Village 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 made

my decision only on the planning merits of the case.

7. The Councils 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 Undertaking

was, however, submitted to the Inquiry. Accordingly, at the commencement ofthe proceedings, it was confirmed that the Council would not be pursuing the

second of the reasons for refusal, subject to appropriate conditions.

Inspectors 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 ofthe 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 andthe reconfiguration of the existing car park to provide a further 18 parkingspaces, at Edgwarebury Cemetery, Edgwarebury Lane, Barnet, London, in

accordance 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 purposes

of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2 Green Belts and development plan

policy;

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

3/17


3 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 other

considerations, 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 ofBelsize Square Synagogue (the appellant) are one of four Jewish communities1that bury their dead in distinct areas there. It is accessed directly fromEdgwarebury 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 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 by

Clay 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 reconfigure

the existing parking area to increase the amount of parking available on thesite, 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 theMetropolitan Green Belt. The land also lies within an Area of Special

Archaeological 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 is

included 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 Synagogue2 The London Borough of Barnet (Bury Farm, Edgwarebury Lane, Edgware) Tree Preservation Order 1978

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

4/17


4 of 17

Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption againstinappropriate development within them. Such development should not be

approved, except in very special circumstances. That presumption is reflectedin 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 notcomprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, with both referring toparagraph 3.4 of PPG2. That paragraph, however, deals specifically with theerection of new buildings in the Green Belt, providing examples of buildings

which need not, necessarily, be inappropriate. The development before meinvolves only a change in the use of the land and additional hardsurfacing. No

new buildings are proposed. Visitors to the cemetery would continue to usethe existing infrastructure, including the existing buildings, access and parking.

15.Whilst the examples listed at paragraph 3.4 include essential facilities forcemeteries, that paragraph does not state expressly that cemeteries, as a newland use, are not inappropriate. Given the nature of the development

proposed, I consider the relevant paragraph of PPG2 under which to considerthe proposal, to be 3.12. This advises that the making of any material changein the use of land is inappropriate development unless it maintains opennessand 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, tonational guidance. On opening the Inquiry, I asked the main partiesparticularly to address the provisions of this paragraph with their witnesses,

and I too asked questions on the matter. I am satisfied that the parties hadsufficient opportunity to give consideration to this approach and to address theInquiry accordingly.

16.I accept that the use of land for cemetery purposes need not, necessarily,comprise inappropriate development. Indeed, whilst the advice at paragraph3.12 is reflected in saved policies O1 and O2 of the Barnet Unitary

Development Plan 2006 (UDP), the explanatory text to policy O2 specificallystates that cemeteries may be acceptable in the Green Belt. I recognise in this

respect, that buildings, which might reduce openness, are not proposed inconnection with the appeal scheme. Neither am I convinced by the Councilsargument 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 comprisethe 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 findhowever, that the planting proposed would simply reinforce existing boundary

planting, rather than introducing planting where none exists at present. I ammindful also, that the planting does not, of itself, comprise development. Incoming to this view, I am also aware that the appeal site lies within asubstantial swathe of land in the northern part of the Borough, designated as a

Community Forest (UDP policy O18). That initiative seeks to increasewoodland coverage in the designated area, an area that is, for the most part,

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

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

5/17


5 of 17

also within Green Belt. The planting proposed would accord with policy O18, apolicy 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. Iam 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 tothe 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 treesand hedgerows being confined to the field boundaries. The use of the land as acemetery by the Jewish communities that currently use the existing facility,

would involve closely placed plinths, stones and slabs (some 800 plots per acreon the evidence of the appellant) with narrow strips of grass in between. Fromwhat 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 thecountryside, contrary to one of the stated purposes of including land in the

Green Belt. Notwithstanding the position of both the Council and the appellanton this matter, I am of the view, having regard to the guidance in PPG2 andthe relevant development plan policies with their supporting commentary, that

the proposal comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt in policyterms.

20.My findings on this matter accord, to some extent, with the reasoning of afellow 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 torefuse planning permission for the use of land at Barnet Gate Lane, Arkley, as

a cemetery with ancillary chapel and mortuary buildings5. In that case, theview 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 natureof the proposal meant that there would be a loss of openness (as well as anadverse visual impact). That loss of openness derived in part from the nature

of the gravestones and tombs characteristic of Jewish cemeteries. The Counciltherefore came to the view, that there are circumstances in which a cemeteryis not an appropriateGreen Belt use6.

Character and Appearance of the Area and Visual Amenity of the Green Belt21.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 wouldintroduce closely placed memorial stone features across the site, in markedcontrast to its existing open, natural and undeveloped character. It is

important however, to look at the impact of that development on the widerlandscape. Although the existing cemetery is an established facility in thelocality, 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 England5 Appeal Decision No APP/N5090/A/97/2888766 Paragraphs 7.13 7.15 of the previous appeal decision

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

6/17


6 of 17

that it was no part of the Councils case that there would be any harm to theArea 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 theHertfordshire countryside merges with the edge of the London metropolis. Theimmediately surrounding area is not notably picturesque and I saw thattraditional management and existing landscape features in the agricultural

landscape are in decline. Elements such as the M1 motorway and LondonGateway service area, the busy Thameslink railway line, and prominent

electricity pylons in close proximity, all have an effect on its perceivedcharacter. On this basis, I agree with the appellant that, in essence, this is nota landscape that is intrinsically sensitive to further change.

23.When seen from further afield, including from elevated land on the far side ofthe 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 thedistance separation involved, but also by existing trees and planting within thelandscape. The appeal scheme includes significant planting and landscapingaround the perimeter of the site, reinforcing old field boundaries, which would

provide additional screening in those views. I consider that what receptorsthere are in the wider area, would not experience any material visual change asa 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 fringebetween Edgwarebury Lane and Broadfields Avenue, a main distributor roadthrough 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 andeastern 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 linearwalk bounded by vegetation.

25.The tree stock is undoubtedly an important feature of the local landscape, withthe trees along Clay Lane being located within a Site of Local Importance forNature 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 andfield boundaries and would reinforce the existing character and appearance ofthe area, rather than introducing a new character to the Lane.

26.Policy D13 of the UDP requires that development schemes should retain asmany trees as is practicable, that existing trees and their root systems are

adequately protected during works on site, and that an appropriate level ofnew tree and shrub planting is provided. All but one of the existing trees andhedgerows 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, withpolicy D13.

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

7/17


7 of 17

27.Moreover, the long term management of those areas, and indeed the site as awhole, 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 ofMr 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 aproposed break of some 3.1m in the existing hedgerow to both sides of ClayLane. 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 characterand appearance. In addition, the proposed gates, details of which could besecured 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 areaof planting at the entrance to the appeal site, which would filter and screenviews 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 similararrangement could also be provided on the opposite side of the Lane at thecorresponding entrance to the existing cemetery.

29.The Crossing Point Management Plan to be submitted would set out thearrangement for the management of the Clay Lane crossing, to protect theinterests 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 besecured by condition, it would quickly weather in. As such, the crossing itself

would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area, or itsvisual amenity, and it would not materially harm the enjoyment of users of thebyway.

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 wouldsimilarly filter views into the appeal site. The development would not, in myopinion, 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 developmentwould be unlikely to increase the frequency or intensity of funerals atEdgwarebury, and no increase in staff is anticipated, the existing parking

arrangement is of poor quality and is, at times, inadequate, resulting invehicles double parking within the site and/or increasing pressure for on-streetparking in the adjacent residential area. As a consequence, it is proposed toreconfigure and re-surface the existing car park, to enable the provision of an

additional 18 spaces. Eight new dedicated staff parking spaces are alsoproposed 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

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

8/17


8 of 17

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

32.Development on the appeal site would take place very gradually, over manyyears, 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 appealsite itself would change over time and to that extent, there would be somelocalised 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, wouldnot 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 inthe summer, means that there would be little, if any, harm to the overallcharacter and appearance of the area, or to the visual amenities of the Green

Belt. There would be no conflict therefore with PPG2, or saved policiesGBEnv1, GBEnv4, D2 and D13 of the UDP.

Ecology33.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 basedon a belief that a significant number of trees on the site would be felled orotherwise threatened by the proposal. As confirmed already, with the possibleexception 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 interestingherbaceous plants. With regard to the ecological value of the appeal site itself,

I understand that the fields have reverted to grassland within the last fouryears. The most notable habitats, therefore, are the hedgerows and treesalong the boundary with Clay Lane, and the mature trees along the otherboundaries, associated with now defunct hedgerows.

35.The parallel hedgerows along Clay Lane are likely to fulfil the ecological criteriafor important hedgerows as defined by the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. To

facilitate the proposed Clay Lane crossing, only 3.1m of the hedgerow would beremoved along the boundary of the appeal site, with a corresponding lengthremoved within the opposite boundary. No hedgerow trees would be affected

and the tree canopy above the gaps would be retained. Given the overalllength of the hedgerow along Clay Lane, I consider the loss proposed to beinsignificant. In any event, it is proposed to re-instate some 400m of new

hedgerow around the appeal site, which would more than compensate for theloss.

36.There is confirmed bat activity on the appeal site, although no roosts havebeen identified. Legal protection for bats is provided primarily through the EUHabitats 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

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

9/17


9 of 17

Regulations8 2010. On the basis of the evidence presented to me, I consider ithighly unlikely that any illegal act with respect to bats would occur as a

consequence of the development proposed. In addition, ongoing managementof the tree stock in future years, pursuant to the Landscape and EcologyManagement Plan, would ensure that it could continue to support the ecologicalinterest of the area.

37.Although I understand that a hobby falcon is nesting in the vicinity, theappellants most recent survey (Document 11) found no evidence of any nest

on the appeal site. The species is not of any conservation concern regionally ornationally, 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 tothe 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 theadditional planting and erection of fencing. Any disturbance could be mitigatedby 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 andinjury 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 nationalBAP. 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 beconducive 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, althoughsurveys 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. Accordinglyeven 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, asnoted earlier, the land use change would be so gradual that in the unlikelyevent 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 bylocal 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 UKBAP priority species, or in the London BAP species. All species identifiedappear 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. Iam satisfied, based on the detailed information that is before me that therewould be no material harm to the ecology of the area, subject to appropriateconditions and the submission and implementation of a Landscape and Ecology

Management Plan. I find no conflict in this respect with national guidance inPlanning Policy Statement 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, policies

8 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

10/17


10 of 17

3D.14 and 3D.15 of the consolidated London Plan, and saved policies O17, D14and D15 of the UDP.

Other Considerations

42.Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. PPG2makes it clear that such development should not be approved, except in veryspecial circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriatedevelopment 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 pressingneed for additional cemetery space for at least two of the communities (BelsizeSquare 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 appropriatesites for cemeteries and crematoria to meet the needs of the community, thesupporting text acknowledging that only a limited amount of burial space isavailable to meet local needs. It goes on to state that the Council will seek toensure 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 Planrequires that DPD policies should make provision for Londons burial needs,

including the special needs of certain religious or cultural groups for whomburial is the only option. It adds that provision should be based on theprinciple of proximity to local communities.

45.Notwithstanding the thrust of those policies, I was advised that there has beenno 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 inLondon 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 theemerging Core Strategy fails to identify appropriate sites. In the absence of

any overall framework for meeting the burial and cremation needs of the localcommunity, applications remain to be determined on an ad hoc basis.

46.It was confirmed in cross-examination, that no robust search had beenundertaken by the appellant for any alternative to the proposed extension. Inthe 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, Irecognise that the specific criteria for any new cemetery to meet the needs ofthe 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 atleast 4 hectares in size. I agree with the appellant that any site of that sizewithin the urban area, even if it existed, given that development land in northLondon 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

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

11/17


11 of 17

would be prohibitively expensive. Thus, any financially viable alternative wouldneed 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 ofthe 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, aseparate site, as opposed to the proposed extension could, arguably, be morechallenging with regard to Green Belt policy, since it would require its own new,

essential facilities, including access and car parking and a substantial servicesbuilding (assuming that it would be equivalent to the existing facility).

Although PPG2 and local development plan policies look favourably on essentialcemetery buildings (even were the new use of land as a cemetery accepted asnot inappropriate development) such buildings would, in all likelihood, have a

greater impact on the openness and visual qualities of the Green Belt than thedevelopment the subject of this appeal, which would utilise existing facilities.

49.Objectors suggested that any search should look further afield, possibly beyondthe Green Belt, or in neighbouring authorities, but those locations would fail

the proximity test set out in the London Plan. Furthermore, there is noguarantee that any such site would be preferable in terms of any impact on thecharacter 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. Afacility in a different location would sever future generations from the past.

50.If the appeal were to fail, the Belsize Square Synagogue and Liberal Judaismcommunities face a fundamental problem in finding appropriate, proximate

facilities in which to bury their dead. It was confirmed during the Inquiry, thatevery 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 differentcommunities to share their respective space for religious reasons. The Jewish

religious community is not a single entity - it ranges from the orthodox to themore 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 donot have access to other land within the cemetery.

51.In reaching an overall balance, I must give substantial weight to the policypresumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I have

found that the development proposed would affect the openness of the GreenBelt 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 alternativeto 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 isno need for additional infrastructure or buildings, and given the extensiveplanting proposed, which would make a positive contribution toward the

objectives of the Community Forest. I am satisfied that the combination ofthese considerations is compelling and that they clearly outweigh the harm by

reason of inappropriateness and the other identified harm, and amount to thevery special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

12/17


12 of 17

Unilateral Undertaking and Conditions

52.I have considered the Unilateral Undertaking, and the conditions suggested, inthe 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 Undertakingsecures the payment of 60,000 towards the initial construction and ongoing

maintenance of the crossing point on Clay Lane, and the submission andimplementation of a Landscaping and Ecology Management Plan and a CrossingManagement Plan. It also secures the payment of a contribution towards themonitoring 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 andEcology 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 theprovisions set out in the Undertaking are relevant and necessary to thedevelopment proposed.

55.Moving on to conditions, it was agreed that a number of those originallysuggested would be better addressed through the respective ManagementPlans referred to. It is necessary, however, in addition to the standard time

limit on commencement of development, to list the plans to which thepermission relates, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of properplanning. Conditions are also necessary to ensure that the Management Plansreferred to above are submitted to and approved by the Council prior to

commencement of development, and that development is carried out inaccordance with the provisions of those Plans, in the combined interests of

protecting and enhancing the character and appearance of the area, the visualamenity of the Green Belt, and local ecological interests, and in the interest ofhighway safety.

56.Conditions requiring a detailed specification for any tree pruning/felling, ascheme of soft and hard landscaping, and to ensure that any retained or new

trees/shrubs are replaced, are necessary to protect and enhance the characterand 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 isinstalled 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 priorto erection.

57.It is necessary to restrict the creation of any future access points in order tominimise inconvenience to users of Clay Lane, to ensure the safety of thoseusing 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 thesame reasons, conditions are necessary to ensure that the appellant enters intoan agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 prior to thecommencement of development, that the crossing is sited, constructed and

drained in accordance with details to be submitted, including details of timingof 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

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

13/17


13 of 17

parking spaces, conditions are necessary, in the interest of highway safety andvisual 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 thecemetery extension.

58.The evidence of Dr Rowlands includes a condition to secure a reptile strategyfor the site. Such a condition is necessary in my opinion, given the importanceof the slow worm, and the need to ensure that the appeal site would remainconducive to habitat continuity. A condition was also suggested requiring, priorto 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 protectedspecies. Although I have found that the initial development would be unlikelyto cause any harm to protected species, subject to conditions, I recognise thatdependent upon when this permission might be implemented, some time could

have elapsed since the various wildlife surveys were carried out. In myopinion, 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 shouldsucceed.

Jennifer A VyseJennifer A VyseJennifer A VyseJennifer A VyseINSPECTOR

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

14/17


14 of 17

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

S White - of counsel Instructed by SavillsHe called

D P McInerney BSc(Hons),MLD, CMLI

Partner with The Environmental DimensionPartnership

Dr R Rowlands BSC(Hons),

PhD, MIEEM, CEnv

Partner and ecologist with The Environmental

Dimension PartnershipM Derbyshire BA(Hons),MRTPI

Planning Director with Savills

Rabbi D Rich Chief Executive of Liberal Judaism

F Martin FCA Chairman of the Burial Society of the Spanishand 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 calledC Townsend Principal Planner with the Council

INTERESTED PERSONS OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSAL:

Councillor H Rayner Council of the London Borough of BarnetDr S O Natelson On behalf of the Barnet Group of the London Wildlife TrustC Cohen On behalf of the Barnet Group of the London Wildlife Trust

R Husband On behalf of the Royal Society for the Protection of BirdsMrs F Broom

INTERESTED PERSONS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSAL:

Councillor B Coleman Councillor and Member of the London AssemblyRabbi R Mariner Belsize Square SynagogueRabbi A Goldstein Northwood and Pinner Liberal Synagogue

Rabbi P Tobias The Liberal Synagogue ElstreeJ MorrisP Summerfield

Professor E MoonanR MillerP Berger

H KuttnerJ D PhillipJ Livingston

Mrs O GilbertProfessor M Streat

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

15/17


15 of 17

DOCUMENTS HANDED IN DURING THE INQUIRY

1 Councils letter of notification2 Bundle of third party letters in support of the proposed development3 Draft copy of Unilateral Undertaking4 Policy 3D.19 Burial Space (London Plan)

5 Note of meeting 10 June 20096 Documentation referred to in Mr Cohens representations

7 Page 3 of Appeal Decision No APP/N5090/A/97/2888768 Appearances for the appellant

9 Opening submissions on behalf of the appellant10 Rebuttal Statement of Dr Natelson

11 Hobby, reptile and bat survey (2010) Dr Rowlands12 UDP policies O18 and CS15

13 Written statement of Mr Husband14 Dr Natelsons summary15 Morge v Hampshire County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 608

16 Supplementary evidence of Dr Rowland relating to the legal status of floraand fauna present on the appeal site

17 Signed and dated Unilateral Undertaking

18 Suggested conditions19A Edits to conditions 1 July 201019B Edits to conditions 2 July 2010

20 Closing submissions by Mr Husband21 Closing submissions by Dr Natelson22 Closing submissions on behalf of the Council23 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 LHPL132993\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.

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

16/17


16 of 17

Schedule of Conditions attached toAppeal Decision APP/N5090/A/10/2122850

Edgwarebury Cemetery, Edgwarebury Lane, Barnet, London

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three yearsfrom the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only inaccordance 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 MrMcInerney).

3) No works in connection with the development hereby permitted, includingany site preparation works, shall commence until a Landscape and

Ecology Management Plan for the site, based on the draft heads of termsat Appendix L3 to the evidence of Mr McInerney, has been submitted to

and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Developmentshall be carried out only in accordance with such approved Plan.

4) No works, including preparatory works, relating to the Clay Lane crossinghereby permitted, shall commence until a Crossing Management Plan hasbeen submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority.

Once constructed, the crossing shall thereafter be operated in accordancewith the Crossing Management Plan.

5) No development or other operations in connection with the cemeteryextension hereby permitted shall commence until a detailed treefelling/pruning specification, in accordance with the provisions of the

Landscape and Ecology Management Plan, has been submitted to, andapproved in writing by, the local planning authority. Tree felling andpruning works undertaken on the site shall be carried out in fullaccordance with the approved specification.

6) A scheme of hard and soft landscaping in accordance with the principlesshown on plan Nos EDP 278/12a and 278/37a, including details of alltrees and hedgerows to be retained and the methods and precautions tobe 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 planningauthority prior to commencement of development.

7) All work comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping, shall becarried out in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of

the cemetery extension hereby permitted. Thereafter, it shall bemanaged 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 beplanted as part of the approved landscaping scheme, which are removed,

die, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced inaccordance with the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan.

9) Prior to commencement of development, details of all fences, gates andother means of enclosure, in line with the principles illustrated on plan

8/9/2019 2122850 Decision

17/17


17 of 17

Nos EDP 278/12a and 278/37a, shall be submitted to and approved inwriting 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 siteshall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning

authority. Development shall be carried out only in accordance withapproved strategy.

11) No lighting shall be installed or provided within the cemetery extensionhereby permitted.

12) No access points, either vehicular or pedestrian, shall be formed orcreated from either the existing cemetery or the extension herebypermitted, other than as shown on plan No EDP 278/12a.

13) No development shall take place until an agreement is place, under theprovisions 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 crossinghereby 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 inwriting by, the local planning authority. The crossing shall be provided inaccordance 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 atthe permitted point shall be limited to golf buggies, motorised

wheelchairs, a mini digger and maintenance vehicles. The maximumweight of any vehicle shall not exceed 5 tonnes.

16) Prior to commencement of development, details of the drainage andsurfacing of the parking areas shown on plan No 2125/101M shall besubmitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. Thespaces shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to

first use of the cemetery hereby approved.

..

.

Documents

2122850 Decision