Appeal 6002169

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address in the heading above is taken from the decision notice, as there are minor typographical errors on the appeal form and at section 4 of the application form.

It is apparent from the application form and a photograph on the statement submitted in support of it that the application was submitted retrospectively at least in part. Development is said to have commenced on 5 April 2025. The application form is dated 20 June 2025. The development the subject of the application has not been completed. In particular, there are no black-painted timber gates as shown on the submitted plans.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have assessed the proposed development on the basis of the plans submitted with the application, so I have taken the brick curved side walls and brick piers into account. These features, which have been built, would lie between the fencing and the gates. As they are integral parts of the scheme, they should have been included in the description of the proposal on the application form and the decision notice. The description would read more correctly as “Gates, curved side walls, brick piers and boundary fencing to front boundary”.

The Council accepts that the first sentence of the first reason for refusal is contradictory because of the omission of the word “not” before the word “constitute”. However, when that reason for refusal is read as a whole it is clear that the Council objected to the scheme on Green Belt grounds and the error did not unduly mislead the appellant as his statement outlines why he believes the development, in Green Belt terms, to be an appropriate facility in connection with the existing use of the land for equestrian purposes which clearly falls to be considered as an example of outdoor recreation or outdoor sport.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including any effect on openness, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area, including the Arden Special Landscape Area ([name]); • The impact of the proposal upon biodiversity; and • If the development does amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm to the Green Belt 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 development.

The Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy ([name]) was adopted in 2016. Core Strategy Policy CS.10 says that the purposes of the Green Belt will be upheld by resisting inappropriate development within it, except in cases where very special circumstances are justified in accordance with the provisions of national policy (as it was in 2016). The Framework, as published in 2024, is the latest expression of national policy and thus provides the most suitable policy tests for this proposal.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework explains that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate apart from a few exceptions set out in a closed list.

Part b) permits the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use), including buildings, for outdoor sport/recreation, like the equestrian use of [site address] centred upon the keeping of 10 Spanish-bred stallions for dressage use; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

It is a stretch of the imagination to claim that the gates, curved side walls, brick piers and boundary fencing to the front boundary somehow comprise appropriate facilities in connection with the equestrian use. Such features lack a specific and relatable connection with that use. More typical examples of what could be reasonably expected in this regard might include further stables or an all-weather outdoor equestrian exercise area. Even if, following the appellant’s line of argument, this physical infrastructure across the front boundary should be considered to be an appropriate and integral facility in terms of the site security and safety it offers, I consider that the solid timber boarded gates (up to 2.0m high by 4.8m wide) and the other boundary treatments (2 long lines of solid fencing 2.25m high, 4 brick piers about 2.23m high and brick walling about 2.0m high) would cumulatively cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt in spatial and visual terms along [address]. So, part b) cannot be relied upon.

At part g), the exception refers to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Council’s judgement that the previous simple swing metal gate and low post and rail fences, backed by loose corrugated sheeting, should not be considered as permanent structures has not been seriously challenged by the appellant. From the photographs before me, the Council’s judgement is reasonably well-founded, so it follows that the appeal site cannot be classed as constituting previously developed land. Even if that judgement is wrong for any reason, the new boundary structures, by being far more visually impactful than the front boundary prior to the development taking place and by severely restricting views across open Green Belt land to the south would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. So, part g) cannot be relied upon.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework covers the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt. The link to the provision of roadside boundary structures in the context of this paragraph is rather tenuous in my opinion. Still, to the extent that it may be applicable, the parties accepted that the appeal site meets the definition of grey belt land.

Moving onto the other relevant criteria in that paragraph, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in decision-making. So, I depart from the Council’s view that the site is not in a sustainable location; to my mind the development is at an existing outdoor recreation use that is appropriately located in the countryside not too far away from Ullenhall. Whilst matters such as security and public safety should be considered as other considerations to weigh in the balance (which I turn to later in the decision), like the Council, I find no demonstrable unmet need for the type of development (exceptionally tall, solid and substantial roadside boundary structures) proposed in the application. So, paragraph 155 cannot be relied upon.

Overall, the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and Core Strategy Policy CS.10.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The effect on openness has been explicitly considered already as it was integral to assessing whether the proposal would be inappropriate development or not, with regard to parts b) and g) of paragraph 154 of the Framework.

To be clear, I consider that the proposed gates, piers, walling and fencing given their height, solid design, lateral spread and proximity to the roadside would be exceedingly prominent from various public vantage points along [address] and would provide for strong and emphatic physical features at and next to the entrance of the [site address] site. They would be notably larger in all dimensions and far less visually porous than the previous field gate and fencing. The introduction of these features would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This conflicts with the aims of Core Strategy Policy CS.10 and the Framework.

The stabling in the barn for private use was accepted here. It involved the reuse of a building of permanent and substantial construction. This was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt or countryside. The surroundings of the site are resolutely rural in character. In particular, the road frontage where the development would take place occupies a prominent and sensitive location and is part of a fine and attractive area of countryside between Ullenhall and the A435 which lies within the [name]. The wider undulating landscape is complemented by hedgerows and trees along the roadsides. These are key characteristics of the [name]. Policy CS.12 of the [name] seeks to resist development that would have a harmful effect on the distinctive character and appearance of the SLAs. The supporting text to that policy indicates that the SLAs identified represent particularly high quality countryside in the context of Stratford District, based on their landscape and scenic quality, as well as their natural and historic features.

In the open pubic views of the appeal site from [address], the proposed gates, curved side walls, brick piers and boundary fencing would together appear as a prominent, man-made and visually intrusive interruption to this rural street scene. The sense of incongruity would be reinforced by the presentation of design features that are redolent of a residential development and by the widespread clearance of vegetation especially to the west of the access point.

The construction of obviously domestic development of notable scale, urban form and prominence along this roadside would not be in keeping with the character of the landscape. The development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the distinctive rural character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the [name]. It would therefore run counter to the aims of [name].5, CS.9 and CS.12 insofar as they seek to maintain the landscape character and quality of the District, require development to reflect the character and distinctiveness of the locality and resist development proposals that would have a harmful effect on the distinctive character and appearance of the SLAs.

The Council’s 3rd reason for refusing planning permission was on the basis of an alleged harmful impact on biodiversity by reason of the removal of a section of hedgerow and several trees and an absence of information to show that the impact on biodiversity would be offset.

There is agreement between the parties that if the appeal were to be allowed, the proposal would not be subject to the statutory pre-commencement biodiversity gain condition that applies to such a grant of planning permission because the application was made retrospectively. Reference is however made to Core Strategy Policy CS.6 and the Framework insofar as they relate to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and in particular to biodiversity.

As well as those local and national policies, I have taken into account the response from the [name] of the County Council dated 22 August 2025, the appellant’s willingness to agree a scheme of biodiversity enhancement through compensatory planting and the absence of any formal designation of the site as a place of protected habitats or priority species. On balance, I have reached the view that it is more likely than not that the harm to biodiversity resulting from the construction can be compensated for, as a last resort, by the submission, approval and implementation of a comprehensive and high-quality landscaping scheme that may include the red and blue land shown on the site plan that accompanied the application. This could be secured through a planning condition which can cover the application site (red land) and the other land owned by the appellant (blue land). It would be for the appellant to show that a net gain in biodiversity could be achieved that is acceptable to the Council who would deal with the submitted scheme in the first instance.

On this basis, the development would comply with the aims and objectives relating to biodiversity in Core Strategy Policy CS.6 and the Framework.

An absence of harm with regard to biodiversity, highway safety, residential amenity, the water environment, flood risk and the historic environment is not a positive consideration in favour, rather it should be regarded as neutral in the balance. This also applies to the lack of objections from the Parish Council, local residents, the Highway Authority and the Environmental Health Officer.

For the avoidance of doubt, I should add that any landscaping scheme which may satisfy biodiversity objectives would do little to overcome the harm that would arise to the openness of the Green Belt and to the character and appearance of the area, including the [name], on account of the scale, siting, expanse and height of the roadside boundary structures.

The appellant points to other roadside boundary structures in the Green Belt and the [name] between Ullenhall and the A435. I observed all the examples that are illustrated by photographs in the appellant’s statement but no 2 sites are the same. Whether it be on account of siting, height, lateral spread or the interaction with established vegetation, I saw nothing directly comparable to what is proposed at the appeal site. Moreover, I have no planning history of these other examples before me for comparison purposes, with the exception of the dwelling at Grovewood where planning permission was granted in July 2024 for a replacement gate and gate piers. Apart from serving a residential property, this development displays a limited overall width and is not as high as the boundary structures at [site address] . The solid metal gate at [address] Farm, the only submitted photograph of a non-domestic entrance, is limited in scale, sits between mature roadside hedgerows, has little visual impact in the rural street scene and seems in keeping with the agricultural building and activities beyond.

The appellant, who also keeps a herd of sheep and 2 llamas, explains how the previous boundary treatments were inadequate. He refers to the security needs of the site which has seen break-ins and theft, the propensity for sheep and lambs to stray onto the road, the enhanced management that the stallions require given their sensitivity, physical force and ability to jump over the previous low boundary structures, the proximity of the livestock building to the road, the dangers posed by and to passing traffic along a road that is subject to the national speed limit where there have been vehicle incidents over time and the greater clarity that the scheme would give to the site entrance.

Overall, I attach considerable weight to the benefits that the scheme provides in terms of the reduction in crime, animal safety and public and highway safety. It is clear that a higher and stronger front boundary treatment than the previous boundary structures is required. This weight is tempered somewhat by the availability of other means of achieving site security such as CCTV installations and of equally functional boundary treatments that may offer better protection for the openness of the Green Belt and the high-quality rural surroundings. Sturdy post and rail fencing perhaps with electrical tape or special equine mesh fencing spring to mind in this regard. Neither the application nor the appeal submissions included any specific support from a professionally-recognised equine institution or any published guidance from such an institution to confirm that what is being proposed is the only operational solution for [site address] .

The proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, as I found above. There is additional harm to the rural character and appearance of the locality. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I judge that the other considerations here do not, individually or cumulatively, clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the other harms that would result from the proposal. The very special circumstances required to justify the development are not therefore present.

The appeal scheme would be contrary to the development plan when read as a whole alongside the Framework and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, the development proposal the subject of the appeal should not be permitted.

For the reasons given above and having taken into account all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should not succeed.