Appeal 3298013

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 21/02701/FUL for addition of dormer window and alteration of existing dormer windows to the rear elevation of house, change of use of land from agricultural to agricultural/equestrian and addition of access track and hardstanding with associated works at [site address] , [site address] , Leighterton, Tetbury, Gloucestershire [postcode] granted on 10 February 2022 by Cotswold District Council, is varied by deleting condition 4 and substituting for it the following

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, or any other statutory instrument amending or replacing it, no fencing or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the ‘agricultural and equestrian use’ area on Site Location Plan 101 [name] until a [name]/plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall comprise details of the type, materials, colour and finish of any fencing or means of enclosure proposed, and details of the total number of divisions within the site. Any fencing or other means of enclosure erected within the area shall comply with the details agreed in the [name]/plan thereafter.

Planning permission for the development including the change of use of the field to agricultural/equestrian use included condition 4 that removed permitted development rights for the erection of means of enclosure in the application site.

The Council considers that condition 4 complies with the six tests set out within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including that it is reasonable and necessary to protect the character and appearance of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The appellant however objects to the condition on the basis that it is not reasonable.

The main issue is whether condition 4 is reasonable and necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the AONB.

The appeal site consists of a dwelling and an adjoining field. The landscape here forms part of a mosaic of small scale arable and pasture lands identified in the [name] and Guidelines, March 2016 (LSG) as being within the [name] character designation. The field is largely open and gently slopes away from the houses, giving it an attractive, rural appearance.

The LSG identifies the potential harmful implications of ‘horsiculture’ use on the landscape. These include the proliferation of visual clutter and the sub-division of fields using uncharacteristic boundary treatments, such as white ribbon fences and post-and-rail fences. These concerns are echoed by the advice of the Cotswolds Conservation Board’s The Keeping of Horses and Ponies, June 2017 (KHP).

It is common ground that as a result of the proposed equestrian use division of the field is likely to be required. Without some control, it would be possible for it to be divided into multiple enclosures, using boundary treatments that could detract from the attractive and open landscape. The visual effects of this would be particularly noticeable here given the public footpaths that cross or adjoin the site. As such, a condition controlling the means of enclosure is reasonable and necessary to maintain the character and appearance of the AONB.

However, as part of the proposed use, fencing is necessary to limit grazing to a small area, to prevent overweight equines from excessive eating and to separate horses from footpath users, sheep and other horses. Furthermore, the necessary positioning of fencing can vary on a regular basis, depending on the grazing requirements and use by the equines, as well as the weather and the level of rainfall.

The PPG is clear that the blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale proposals that would otherwise not require planning permission is unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity. Obtaining consent can be a lengthy and time-consuming process. In requiring planning permission for any form of fencing, that may change on a regular basis, the condition as worded would be impractical and excessive for the proposed use, so would not be reasonable or necessary.

In response to the appeal, the Council has suggested a re-worded condition, requiring the submission and approval of a management statement/plan, that would provide details of the type of fencing and its proposed location, including any rotational sequence. However, any agreed rotation would not be sufficiently flexible or practical given that the position of a means of enclosure may need to change frequently and at short notice.

Nevertheless, it is possible to word a condition to require details of the type, colour and materials of the fencing, but to only require details of the total number of divisions within the field, without requiring the exact position of the enclosures. This would allow the Council to retain control, to ensure that fencing blends into the landscape and without excessive proliferation, whilst also giving the appellant some flexibility to vary the exact position of the boundary treatments within the field.

As such, a condition worded on this basis would achieve the requirements of policy EN5 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 (adopted August

that, within the AONB, the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape will be given great weight. It would also meet the similar requirements of the Framework, the LSG and the KHP.

For the reasons given above, I have concluded that a condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the AONB, but that as currently worded condition 4 would be excessive and impractical in its extent of control. The Council can exercise sufficient control by means of a condition that requires submission and approval of the details of the fencing and the total number of divisions within the field. This would accord with the advice in the PPG and the Framework.

I have sought the views of the main parties to the wording of such a condition. The appellants have suggested that the condition could instead refer to three divisions using temporary fencing, but with post-and-rail or wire fencing alongside the footpath. I understand that this would avoid the need to make a further application to the Council and would resolve the situation.

However, I do not have enough information about the proposed fencing for such a condition to be sufficiently precise, for example in respect of the proposed permanent fencing. Details of the fencing and of the acceptable number of divisions should be determined in conjunction with the Council. I have therefore imposed a condition requiring a management statement/plan to be submitted to them.

I have taken into account the comments made in representations, but these essentially relate to matters that were considered by the Council during the application rather than about condition 4. They do not alter my conclusion on

I conclude that the planning permission should be varied as set out in the