Appeal 6002484

The appeal is dismissed.

The fence has been erected and appears to accord with the submitted drawings. Therefore, I have determined the appeal based on those drawings and my observations of the fence at my site visit.

The Council considers that draft Policy GB1 of the Regulation 19 Draft of The Castle Point Plan 2026-2043 (July 2025), which was submitted for examination on 31 January 2026, places heavy weight on protecting the Green Belt. However, the information before me does not indicate whether the Policy is the subject of unresolved objections and I cannot be certain that it will be adopted in the form submitted in evidence. Therefore, in determining this appeal, Policy GB1 attracts limited weight.

The main issues in this appeal are whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”), and if so, whether the 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 necessary to justify it.

The Framework sets out how the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. 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. Framework Paragraph 154 sets out that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, unless one of the stated exceptions apply.

The fence has been erected as part of the enclosure of land that the main parties agree is being used for the keeping of horses as an outdoor recreation activity. The exception applicable to the appeal development is agreed to be that in Framework Paragraph 154.b). This states that the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, including buildings, is not inappropriate development providing they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The fence constitutes a building.

Openness is identified in the Framework as one of the Green Belt’s essential characteristics. Caselaw, including that referred to by the appellant, has established that openness has spatial and visual aspects. In volumetric terms, the fence is a narrow, thin profiled structure that has resulted in only modest harm to Green Belt openness in the spatial aspect.

In the visual aspect, the Green Belt in the area of the appeal site is not built-up and has the impression of being largely free of built development. It consists of a loose-knit and somewhat scattered pattern of buildings set within a generally rural landscape of open land and thick woodland.

The appeal fence runs for approximately 60 metres along the frontage to [address], which is a narrow, hard surfaced road that appears to provide access to land and buildings in the area, including several residential properties. There is no dispute that it is a highway and it is signposted as a public bridleway.

The appeal fence appears to be constructed from black painted timber boards laid horizontally between thick timber upright posts. The gaps between the boards are very narrow giving the fence an almost solid appearance. At a height of about 1.8 metres the appeal fence is highly visible in street level views and there is nothing before me to suggest that the fence replaced a comparable structure.

The fence’s dark colour seeks to be recessive. However, due to the combination of its height, length and sense of solidity it has formed a strong physical barrier to views across the Green Belt. Seen largely against a backdrop of trees and open land surrounded by vegetation, it has an intrusive presence in such close-range views from [address]. For those reasons the fence has resulted in a significant adverse impact on Green Belt openness in the visual aspect.

That the fence is built from the traditional material of timber does not alter my conclusion on its effect on openness. Some intermittent roadside vegetation has begun to grow between the fence and the road and more might follow. However, it has only a slight softening effect on the fence’s appearance and it would not be sufficient to alter my conclusion on its harmful effect on openness. It also appears to not be growing on land within the appellant’s control and therefore could be subject to removal as part of a maintenance regime.

There appears to be no dispute between the parties that the fence does not conflict with any of the purposes of the Green Belt. However, for the reasons given above it has failed to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and it therefore amounts to inappropriate development.

The health and safety implications for the horses kept on the appellant’s land and the general public at large are put forwards as the justification for the height, length and solidity of the fence. Specifically, the keeping of a Stallion horse and the additional risks posed by such horses. Those risks are set out in the British Horse Society’s (BHS) advice note on “Stallions on land used by equestrians”, and the associated advice on “Fencing for Horses”. Given the status of the BHS and its relevance to the welfare of horses and the safety risks presented by them, its guidance should be afforded significant weight as a material consideration.

In summary, the BHS advises that stallions can behave aggressively at certain times of the year and amorously at others. This can pose a risk to the public and passing mares, who they may seek to interact with, and there have been instances where serious injury to horses and riders has occurred. The BHS suggests that an owner should consider avoiding keeping a stallion in a field adjacent to an equestrian right of way. It is possible that equestrians use the bridleways in the area, including [address].

The appellant’s concerns over the health and safety implications of keeping a stallion horse are understandable. I see no basis to dispute the necessity of some form of fence along [address]. However, of the fencing options set out in the BHS guidance, only plain wire and barbed wire are specifically identified as unsuitable types for horses. There is nothing of substance to indicate that permeable fencing types, which are likely to allow views through them, such as post and rail fencing and stock fencing, as listed in the BHS guidance, would be unsuitable for horses in general, or stallions specifically. In my experience, post and rail fencing, and stock fencing, are common types of fencing to enclose land in equestrian uses.

For stallions, the BHS suggests fencing heights in the range of 1.25 – 2.0 metres. Whilst the appeal fence falls within that range, the BHS guidance does not mandate a fence of the height and solidity that has been erected at this appeal site. It specifically allows for a lower height fence subject to the caveat that where fencing of the minimum height is used, it takes the form of a double fence line with an electric fence line along the top of the field boundary.

The main parties disagree whether this type of fencing would have a lesser effect on openness than the appeal fence. The appellant considers that it would result in more visual clutter. However, there is nothing to show that to be the case. There is nothing of substance to indicate that the appellant has explored the erection of a lower height fence or a fence of a more permeable appearance, such as that recommended by the BHS.

A lower height fence would be expected to have a considerably lesser effect on openness than the appeal fence, whilst at the same time complying with the BHS guidance on the safe keeping of horses, specifically stallions. I see no reason why double fence lines could not be used in this instance. Those fence lines could be set either side of the row of trees within the appellant’s land and the outer row may well diminish the visible effect of the inner row in views from [address].

I do not doubt that the appellant’s genuinely held concerns over the health and safety risks of keeping a stallion horse have been the driving force behind the height and solidity of the appeal fence. However, on the evidence before me, particularly the BHS guidance, I am not satisfied that an alternative design of fence could not achieve an acceptable standard of safety and well-being for horses and people, whilst having a considerably lesser effect on openness or preserving openness. Consequently, on the evidence before me, I find the height and solidity of the appeal fence to be a disproportionate response to those concerns, and therefore only moderate weight attaches to this matter.

I note the appellant’s contention that the fence provides protection from unauthorised access and theft. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that the appeal site has been subject to such incidents or that the fence is the only viable or practical option for enhancing security.

Some general similarities can be drawn between the appeal fence and the other examples of fences, gates and walls in the area that have been brought to my attention by the appellant. The examples of tall fences and gates along [address] and [address] are on different roads, with little if any intervisibility with the appeal fence. Some were set further back from the respective roads that they front onto. The tall metal gates and fence on [address] appear to be of some age given their rusty condition and compared to the appeal fence are set further back from the road. As such, they are not directly comparable to the appeal fence.

Planning permissions for those examples are not before me. The Council contends that they cannot be relied upon as a precedent until their status is established through ongoing enforcement investigations. However, even if the Council’s investigations were to establish that those examples are lawful, for the reasons given above they have relatively limited relevance and weight to my considerations in this appeal. In any case, I have assessed the development based on its own merits.

The appellant considers that a fence 1 metre high could be erected as a permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. It is not for me in determining this appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to make a formal determination on the lawfulness of any development. However, as the appeal fence is considerably taller and has a worse effect on Green Belt openness, the potential fallback position has limited weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

The appeal development would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. As such, it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the totality of the harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The Framework requires me to give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt, including inappropriateness.

In this instance the harm to the Green Belt would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. Therefore, it conflicts with the Framework’s policies that seek to protect Green Belt.

I have not been referred to any policies in the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan, Adopted 1998, that are relevant to the disputed matters in this appeal, or to any conflict with its policies. However, the application of the Framework’s policies on the Green Belt provides a strong reason for refusing the development.

For the reasons given above the conflict with the Framework justifies a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. The development is unacceptable and the appeal should be dismissed.