Appeal 6001779

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for change of use of vacant agricultural land to equestrian facilities is refused.

The Council did not issue a decision within the prescribed period, and the appeal is against their failure, as the local planning authority, to determine the application.

In the banner heading and decision above, I have used the description of the proposed development as given on the planning application form. The appeal form and the Council’s Officer Report both include a fuller description of the proposed equestrian facilities, specifying construction of a trackway, parking area and erection of a stable block and storage hut. It is not clear from the appellant’s evidence whether the revised description was formally agreed by them at the time of the application, but the proposed equestrian facilities as detailed on the drawings correspond with that fuller description.

The appellant’s response to the Council’s proposed conditions included a new drawing and photographs purporting to demonstrate that adequate visibility is available at the site access. The information is relevant to the appeal and could not reasonably have been provided earlier, since the Council’s position on highway safety may not have been clear to the appellant at the point when the appeal was lodged. I have referred to the drawing and photographs but, for the reasons given below, they have not affected the outcome of the appeal. Consequently, no unfairness to the Council or any other relevant party arises as a result of my having done so.

An Officer Report had been prepared prior to submission of the appeal, but the appeal was lodged before the application could be determined. The officer’s recommendation was that planning permission should be refused for three reasons, relating to conflict with development plan policies for development in the Green Belt, the effect on the character and appearance of the area and the effect on highway safety. The Council’s statement of case also refers to those recommended reasons for refusal. Against that background, the main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, • the effect on highway safety, • the effect on the character and appearance of the area, and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

In the [name] and Policies for Management of Development 2015 (CSPMD), Policy CSSP4 states that the Council’s policy is to maintain the purpose, function and open character of the Green Belt in accordance with PPG2 1. Policy PMD6 states that planning permission will only be granted for new development in the Green Belt provided it meets the requirements and objectives of PPG2. Both policies express a positive approach to the constructive and positive use of the Green Belt for sports and leisure purposes and PMD6 goes on to set out criteria for new equestrian facilities in the Green Belt. Those include that stables will only be permitted where they are requisite to the use of the land for grazing, and that larger scale commercial facilities will only be permitted where they use existing buildings.

PPG2 would have been the relevant statement of national planning policy for development in the Green Belt when the CSPMD was first adopted. Since it has subsequently been superseded by the Framework, the references to national planning policy in Policies CSSP4 and PMD6 should be interpreted in that context.

In the Framework, Paragraph 154 states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of several specific exceptions apply. Of those, paragraph 154b allows for the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of the land or a change of use), including buildings, for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation. Paragraph 154h(v) allows for material changes in the use of land, including for outdoor sport or recreation. But in both cases there is also a requirement that the development preserves the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal proposal relates to a parcel of agricultural land, which is devoid of any existing buildings. There is a substantial hedgerow along the frontage to [site address] , but views are available into and across the site through the access gates. Although there are developed sites to either side, the site itself has a high level of openness behind the boundary vegetation, and its undeveloped state can be readily appreciated. 1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 2

While the site plan indicates only a small paddock within the appeal site, an adjacent field is also identified as being in the appellant’s ownership. The two parcels together appear capable of supporting a small-scale equestrian facility, including grazing land, which would in principle fall within the scope of paragraph 154, being an outdoor recreational use. The stable building would provide three loose boxes and a tack room/storage area, all of which are clearly related to the proposed equestrian use of the land, and paragraph 154b allows in principle for new buildings. That building would also be modest in scale, occupying a small proportion of the site, behind the hedgerow and backing onto mobile homes in the adjacent site, with only a limited effect on openness.

However, additional facilities are also proposed, notably a separate security and storage cabin, areas of hardstanding and several car parking spaces. The Block Plan indicates some 12 parking spaces, while the Design and [name] refers to up to 15 spaces being proposed. Either level of parking seems entirely inconsistent with the modest scale of the proposed stabling and the description of the proposed use as being for keeping of three horses for private enjoyment.

The presence of a substantial rank of parked cars would have an adverse effect on openness, as would the level of activity likely to be associated with the more intensive use implied by that level of parking. The security/storage cabin would be small, but it would be prominently sited just inside the access, thereby also contributing to the cumulative impact on openness. It is also questionable whether it amounts to appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation, since small scale private stables do not commonly employ security staff in need of separate facilities.

Considered as a whole, the proposal would have a moderately harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. That harm would have spatial and visual aspects, since the security cabin and parking would be conspicuously located just inside the access and visible from [site address] . Consequently, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt and does not fall within the scope of paragraph 154 of the Framework.

I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined in the Framework. It would conflict with those aspects of Policies CSSP4 and PMD6 which refer to compliance with national planning policy. It would also conflict with the criteria in Policy PMD6 for equestrian development, since the proposed facilities would go beyond the provision of stabling requisite to the use of the land for grazing.

The vehicular access in the easternmost corner of the site is described as existing and well-established in the application documents. However, the Council reports that there was continuous vegetation along the frontage until April 2025. Even if there was a pre-existing field access, the site is described in the planning application as vacant agricultural land. No substantive evidence has been provided of any previous use likely to have generated vehicle movements and the proposed level of parking provision implies more intensive use of the access than would generally be expected at a field gate serving vacant agricultural land.

The access is onto [site address] , which is a B-classified highway with a 50mph speed limit. It is also close to multiple roundabouts forming a complex junction with the A176 and A13 dual carriageway. There is a petrol filling station with car sales at the nearest roundabout, a commercial site adjacent to the appeal site and several dwellings opposite. At the time of my site visit, there was a steady, fast-flowing stream of traffic in both directions. While that is only a snapshot in time, the characteristics of the surrounding roads and other nearby land uses indicate a highway network which could be expected to carry a significant level of traffic, including turning movements at the other nearby accesses.

Furthermore, the access into the appeal site is within what appears to be a visibility splay for the adjacent commercial site and behind a cycle lane. It is close to the adjoining access, which currently serves a car wash on the frontage, as well as a range of commercial buildings behind. Use of the access into the appeal site could interfere with vehicles entering and exiting the car wash/commercial units, leading to conflict between vehicles negotiating these two adjacent entrances in the context of fast flowing traffic. There is also a risk that such conflict would impact on more vulnerable users of the cycle lane.

In the appellant’s additional visibility evidence, the area identified takes in the car wash, including a portacabin on the site frontage, as well as parked cars and other clutter within the grass verges close to the carriageway. There were similar obstructions in that area when I visited the site, and those areas are outside the appellant’s control. The additional evidence does not, therefore, establish that adequate visibility could be secured.

During my site visit, it was difficult to see vehicles approaching from the A176/A13 junction. The road curves back gently in the approach to the roundabout and there were obstructions along the grass verge as previously noted. While vehicles may slow when entering and leaving the roundabout, the flow of traffic I observed past the appeal site appeared fast enough to affect safe use of the access, taking into account the restricted level of visibility.

Based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that safe and suitable access would be available. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on highway safety. It would conflict with relevant requirements in Policy PMD9 of the CSPMD, which include that new accesses or increased use of existing accesses will only be permitted where the development makes a positive contribution to road safety or road safety is not prejudiced.

As described above, the appeal site is currently an open field. In itself, it has a clearly rural character, comprising rough grass and low-lying vegetation, with boundary hedgerows. From the access, it is seen against a wooded hillside beyond the A13, providing a sense of connection with wider countryside.

There are, however, several more urbanised features in the immediate vicinity, including the adjacent commercial site and car wash, a row of houses opposite, and the petrol filling station with car sales display area further along the road. A traveller site including several mobile homes and other associated development lies just beyond the site. Therefore, while the site displays rural characteristics, it is a relatively isolated pocket of undeveloped land, which is seen in the context of existing development.

[name] have concluded that the level of proposed facilities would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, that is a different question from their effect on the character and appearance of the area. Equestrian facilities are typically located in rural surroundings, and the design and materials of the proposed stables would be low key and unobtrusive. The plans indicate that a significant belt of vegetation would be retained along the frontage, as well as additional tree planting behind the paddock. If so, that would maintain a sense of continuity with important characteristics of the rural landscape, including the rising, wooded land beyond the A13, as well as mitigating the visual impact of the more urbanising features, such as the security cabin and parking area.

The cabin and parking area themselves are comparable with similar features on other nearby sites, which also include areas of car parking and portable buildings. Overall, the proposed use and layout would respond reasonably positively to the rural features of the site, while also reflecting characteristics of the established development along the [site address] frontage.

I therefore conclude that the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable. There would be no material conflict with relevant requirements in Policy PMD2, which include that development must contribute positively to the character of the area in which it is proposed and that features contributing to the natural landscape, such as hedges, should be protected and enhanced.

The proposal would make productive recreational use of land which is currently vacant. However, on the basis that the stables are proposed primarily for private enjoyment, any economic benefits would be extremely limited. Nor is there any substantive evidence of new employment opportunities, although there may be some associated support for rural businesses.

Biodiversity net gain is proposed. While that would not materially exceed the mandatory 10% requirement, it is nevertheless a benefit carrying some modest weight. There may also be some limited benefit from the introduction of suitable sustainable drainage measures. However, while proposed measures such as water recycling, high performance insulation and use of energy-efficient appliances may help to mitigate the effect of the development on energy and water consumption, they would not deliver benefits over and above the existing use of the land.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in the Framework. There would be moderate harm to openness, in both spatial and visual terms. The proposed access arrangements would be harmful to highway safety, based on the evidence before me.

The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt including harm to its openness. Very special circumstances will not exist unless that harm, and any other harm resulting from the development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

While there may be some benefits arising from the proposal, they are of modest scale and/or somewhat undefined. [name] have concluded the effect on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable, the development would not positively enhance its surroundings, so that weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

Even if considered collectively, the other considerations fall well short of clearly outweighing the substantial weight which should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including the harm to openness, and the harm to highway safety. I therefore conclude that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused.