Appeal 6003060

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of land to equestrian and the erection of a stables building comprising 1 stall, 1 tack room, and 1 feed store with associated access at [site address] , [site address] , Longfield, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00755/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I noted during my site visit that there were two equines present on the site and that the vehicular access had already been provided. The description of development provided on the planning application form did not include the access. Nevertheless, the appellant has confirmed in their Appeal Statement that the access has already been provided and that this aspect of the scheme is retrospective. Consequently, I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the appeal form, which included the access.

The Council has confirmed that the submitted ecological information has been considered by its technical consultee, and it no longer wishes to defend the second reason for refusal which related to insufficient information about the effect on protected species and biodiversity features, providing that conditions would be imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s approach in this respect.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies, including the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.

There is no dispute between the parties that the site lies within the Green Belt. Policy M12 of The Dartford Plan Adopted April 2024 (DP) states that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will be resisted in accordance with national planning policy. The Framework states that 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 Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions identified under paragraph 154 or 155 applies.

Framework paragraph 154 b) sets out one exception as the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use), including buildings, for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

No definition of what constitutes an appropriate facility is provided within the Framework. Therefore, this is a matter of judgement based upon the circumstances of any given case.

Paragraph 12 of Policy M12 of the DP states that when considering equine development, assessment will include the location/ layout of structures, the need for the size of structures and buildings proposed to serve the use of the land and the quality of the structures, buildings and landscaping proposed.

The proposal includes the erection of a single rectangular building that would provide one stable, one tack room and one food store. The appellant states that it would be used to house one horse and its foal. The building would appear as a traditional timber clad stable building with overhanging roof above the front elevation, and the limited size of the building would appear proportionate for the use and function proposed. The hardstanding proposed to the front of the stable would provide vehicular access to the stable building and a turning area, the size of which would enable a towing vehicle to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. Overall, I find that the building and hardstanding would be modest additions which would support the equestrian use of the site.

Based on my assessment of the different elements of the scheme, I find that the access and both the stable and hardstanding would constitute appropriate facilities in connection with the equestrian use of the land, which would form an outdoor sport or recreational use. The proposal would therefore accord with the first part of paragraph 154 b) of the Framework. The next test is whether the proposal would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and whether it would conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. The site is a fairly level grass field surrounded by boundary vegetation along three sides with a post and wire fence separating the site from the adjacent grass field to the north. Equestrian uses appear prevalent in the surrounding area.

The use of the field for the grazing and keeping of equines appears in keeping with the rural and open character of the area. The site is already enclosed by existing boundary treatments that are rural in character, including low level post and wire fencing. The provision of similar additional fencing around the hardstanding would reflect these existing rural boundary treatments already present.

The proposed stable building and hardstanding would provide built form on an area of land which is currently undeveloped. Therefore, the proposal would alter the spatial openness of the site. The formation of the access point means that there would be views of the stable building and the hardstanding when passing the access point on [site address] , however, the set back of the proposed stable, the existing vegetation along the boundaries and the proposed landscaping would temper the visual effects on openness somewhat from these public viewpoints.

I therefore find that there would be some effect on spatial and visual openness as a result of the development. However, this would potentially be the case for any new facility for outdoor sport or recreation use within the Green Belt.

Given Framework paragraph 154 b) makes reference to the provision of buildings, it seems to me, that there will be cases where appropriate facilities, including buildings, in connection with the use of the land for outdoor sport or outdoor recreation would be considered to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. I find that to be the case in this instance.

I find that the vehicular access and the proposed stable and hardstanding would support the function of the equestrian use of the land. I also find that the scale of the stable and hardstanding would be largely commensurate with the scale of use proposed and the overall size of the site. Whilst the Council raise concerns about the size of the hardstanding, given it would enable towing vehicles to turn within the site and given the narrow nature of [site address] , I find that this arrangement would support the equestrian use of the site whilst preventing conflicts with other vehicles using the Avenue.

The equestrian use of the site is for private use only and the overall size of the field and the stable mean that it would be self-limiting in the number of equines that could be housed there and the activity associated with it. Overall, I find that the scheme would respect the need to preserve the openness of the Green Belt in the specific circumstances of this case.

The five purposes of including land within the Green Belt are listed at paragraph 143 of the Framework. The most relevant in this case is purpose c), assisting in the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment, given that the proposed stable and hardstanding would represent a new development on land that is presently undeveloped in the countryside.

However, when considering the function of the proposed building and hardstanding, the use of land they would support and the modest scale of development, I find that the level of encroachment would be limited.

In conclusion, I find that the development would comply with paragraph 154 b) of the Framework and therefore would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, I find that the development would accord with Policy ME12 of the DP, which requires that inappropriate development in the Green Belt is resisted in accordance with national planning policy and that proposals for equine development are carefully considered in terms of location, layout, the need for the size of buildings in relation to the use of the land and the quality of buildings and landscaping.

[name] have been referred to the matter of grey belt and whether the proposal would meet the requirements of paragraph 155 of the Framework, given my findings above, I have not considered this matter further. Also, given I have found that the development would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there is no need for me to consider whether very special circumstances exist that would justify the scheme.

Concerns are raised about additional traffic using [site address] , however, the proposed hardstanding would enable vehicles to satisfactorily manoeuvre within the site. The small scale of the development also significantly limits the number of likely vehicle movements related to the site.

Interested parties raise concerns about the overall site area and the minimum grazing requirements for equines. However, the Council concludes in its [name] that the site is suitable for the scale of equestrian development proposed. Nevertheless, this matter would fall under different legislation or requirements, that are outside of the planning system.

The Council are content that sufficient information has been provided on ecology and protected species, and I can find no reason to disagree. The scheme includes the provision of additional landscaping and biodiversity enhancements secured by

I have considered the suggested conditions against the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. The access has been installed, and the equestrian use of the land has commenced so a time limit condition for commencement of development is not necessary. For the avoidance of doubt a plans condition is necessary.

Conditions are imposed requiring details of the boundary treatments and hardstanding prior to installation, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. These conditions cannot be triggered prior to occupation given the site is already in equestrian use.

A condition requiring a [name] and Enhancement Plan is imposed in the interests of biodiversity, although I have simplified the suggested condition in the interests of clarity. Finally, a condition restricting the use of the development is required in order to limit the impact on the open countryside and the Green Belt.

I have not imposed the suggested condition setting out the requirement for a biodiversity gain plan as this is a deemed condition.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: J005338-DD-01 Site Location Plan; J005338-DD-12 [name]; J005338-DD-13 [name]; J005338- DD-14 [name] Elevations.

Prior to the installation of the boundary treatments, details of the proposed enclosures shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Prior to the installation of the hardstanding, details of the materials to be used for the surface of the hardstanding shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Within two months of permission being granted for the development, a [name] and Enhancement Plan (BPEP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The BPEP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

The use of the stable buildings and land hereby approved shall be only for the private keeping of horses and for no other purpose, including any commercial livery use or any other equestrian use falling within any Class of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987, (or for any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order) and any other use whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) or not.