Appeal 6005947

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/01069/FUL for erection of stable block at [site address] , [site address] Road, Warwickshire [postcode] , granted on 24 November 2025 by Stratford-on-Avon District Council, is varied by deleting conditions 8 and 9.

I am also considering another appeal1 by the same appellant for the installation of boundary fence and gates. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision.

Planning permission for the erection of a stable block was granted by the Council in November 2025, subject to a number of conditions including two conditions relating to improvements to the visibility splays from the access and the associated planting of a new hedge behind the new visibility splays. The Council’s statement indicates that the conditions are necessary in the interests of highway safety and to enhance the character and amenity of the area. 1 6005943

The appellant objects as they consider the conditions are unreasonable as the access is well-established, in continuous use and has no records of incidents. Moreover, the appellant contends that the number of vehicle movements would reduce. With regard to the landscaping condition the appellant contends that this is only necessary if the visibility splay condition is.

Taking the above background into account, the main issue is whether the conditions are reasonable or necessary in the interests of highway safety and the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises paddocks and buildings for horses. It lies within an area of open countryside for planning purposes, within the Arden Special Landscape Area, and is outside of the settlement of [site address] . The wider area includes residential properties, including the host dwelling [site address] , other farms, and equestrian uses.

The approved development was for a replacement stable building which, albeit larger, was for the same purpose as the existing structure. Although the appellant contends that the vehicle movements would reduce, I cannot be certain that this would be the case and, as noted by the Council, the proposed building would result in vehicle movements. Nevertheless, the appellant can already use the access for horse related vehicle movements and there are no controls or limits as to the number or size of vehicles. Although the Council have raised concerns, there is no compelling evidence that the number of vehicle movements would noticeably increase.

I acknowledge that visibility to the right is poor and has reduced over time, due to the presence of the roadside hedge and the curvature of the road. Nevertheless, the visibility is as existing and the Council has accepted that the access can be used. On this basis, and that the use of the site is not changing, the condition to require the visibility splays to be improved is not reasonable or necessary. Although it would be beneficial to improve visibility, I have to balance the improvements against the fact that it is an existing access. For the same reasons it would not be necessary to impose a condition to require the installation of a mirror.

The condition relating to the planting of a new hedge behind the visibility splays required by condition 8 is, therefore, also not necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that conditions 8 and 9 are not reasonable or necessary in the interests of highway safety and the character and appearance of the area. The appeal should succeed and I, therefore, vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed conditions.