Appeal 6006042

The appeal is dismissed.

A previous planning application for the proposed change of use of land to equestrian, and construction of 3 stables, and a tack room / feed store plus toilet provision was refused in 20251. The appeal scheme is very similar to the previous scheme, albeit additional information has been provided in respect of highway safety and biodiversity net gain addressing refusal reasons for the previous application.

The main issues are:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and  whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt where Policy CS5 of the [name] 2006-2031 (adopted 2013) (the [name]) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) place strict control over inappropriate development.

The Framework establishes that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and within paragraph 1 24/02658/FUL 143 the five purposes of the Green Belt are set out. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework list the types of development which are not regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt.

The exception outlined in paragraph 154b) allows for 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. Policy CS5 allows for building for the uses defined as appropriate in national policy provided that it has no significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and it supports the rural economy and maintenance of the wider countryside.

From the information before me, it is evident that the proposal would be for personal recreational use only, with the appellant agreeable to the imposition of a condition securing this. The proposed stable building would be used to house 3 equines. On this basis, the proposed facilities, comprising 3 stables plus storage and toilet facilities, would not be excessive for the proposed use. While the Council have raised concerns regarding the proposed extent of hardstanding, there is no substantive evidence before me demonstrating that the proposed hardstanding, which the appellant advises would be of sufficient size to provide a turning area for a car towing a horse box, would be excessive. I am, therefore, satisfied that the proposal as a whole would represent an appropriate facility for outdoor recreation.

Nevertheless, the exception in paragraph 154b) of the Framework only applies where facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The construction of the proposed stable building and hardstanding would considerably increase the extent of built development on the site, extending built form on to land previously open and undeveloped. Indeed, while the proposed stable building would be broadly comparable in height with the existing field shelter on the site, the proposed built form would appear considerably more prominent than this structure, by reason of its larger scale and siting closer to the A4251. This is irrespective of its design reflective of the character of the surrounding area and the proposed use of materials which would respect the rural locality of the site.

Consequently, although the footprint of the building would be relatively modest, its bulk would, in combination with the proposed hardstanding, fencing and gate, lead to a harmful loss of spatial and visual openness. This would particularly be the case due to the siting of the proposal some distance from existing built form and on land which is currently characterised by its openness and verdancy. Vehicles parked on the proposed hardstanding would further erode the visual openness of the Green Belt, even if the level of activity generated on the site post-development would likely be broadly comparable to, or less than, the site in its existing use.

Existing vegetation within and adjacent to the site would provide some screening of the development, particularly from the A41. However, the proposal would be visible from the A4251 through gaps in the vegetation. Additional planting proposed as part of the scheme would provide further screening. Notwithstanding this, such planting would take some time to establish and, even after it is established, there would likely remain some visibility from the A4251, for example at the site access.

Taking account of the above, the proposal would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In addition, as the site forms part of the countryside, the development would lead to the encroachment of development into the countryside. It would, therefore, be contrary to purpose c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework.

The appellant asserts that some harm to spatial openness would occur as a result of this type of development in any location and that some effect on openness is inherently accepted by paragraph 154 of the Framework, with reference to the findings in a recent appeal decision2. Even so, whether the extent of the effect meets the tests in paragraph 154b) will, ultimately, require a judgement to be exercised based on the circumstances of the case. For the reasons set out above, in this case, the proposal would erode the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt to a harmful degree.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision for a similar scheme in Sevenoaks3. I do not have full details of that scheme before me. Nevertheless, it is evident that that proposal includes a smaller stable building than is before me. The scheme also relates to a different location. The conclusions reached in that appeal do not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion in respect of the appeal scheme. Equally, the extent to which equestrian related activities take place in the Green Belt is not determinative in this case.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not meet the exception in paragraph 154b) of the Framework. It is not part of the appellant’s case that the proposal falls within any of the other exceptions set out in paragraph 154.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where a. the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b. there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c. the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework; and d. where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157. As the development proposed does not constitute major development, criterion d. is not applicable in this case.

The Framework defines grey belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b) or d) of the Green Belt, as set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework, and that is not subject to any of the restrictions in footnote 7 of the Framework. The parties agree that the site does not strongly contribute to purposes a), b) or d) of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework. Although the site is located within the Chilterns National Landscape, the Council concludes that the proposal would conserve and enhance the 2 APP/P1805/C/23/3327300 3 APP/G2245/W/21/3280302 character and appearance of the National Landscape. I see no reason to disagree. Accordingly, no footnote 7 restrictions are applicable and the site, therefore, constitutes grey belt land.

Given the modest scale of development proposed and extent of Green Belt which would be affected by the proposal, relative to the quantum of Green Belt across the Borough, the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. In this regard, the proposal is consistent with criterion a. of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

In respect of criterion b., the appellant notes that equestrian developments are not recorded for plan-monitoring purposes and suggests that, as the proposal is for private recreational use, a generalised approach to establishing unmet need would not be applicable. In this context, it is put to me that there is a demonstrable need for the proposed stables due to the land where the equines were previously kept becoming unavailable. However, no authority for taking such an approach is given. Looking at the wording of paragraph 155b. the demonstrable unmet need must relate to the ‘type of development proposed’. It is not confined to the specific development itself. Hence, I cannot agree that the appellant’s approach is consistent with the requisite criteria.

In any event, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before me to demonstrate there is truly an unmet need for the development proposed on a specific analysis. In particular, it has not been demonstrated that there are no existing stables available that would be suitable for accommodating the appellant’s equines. Against this background, the availability of the appeal site, its existing use and its proximity to the appellant’s place of residence are not determinative factors in my decision.

On this basis, I do not need to consider the sustainability of the location to conclude that the proposal would fail to satisfy all of the criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the Framework. Consequently, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy CS5 of the [name].

The proposed development would provide private benefits to the appellant in terms of improved equestrian facilities. It would introduce additional planting to the site and provide a biodiversity net gain. The appellant has put to me that there would also be sustainability benefits as the need to move the equines between the grazing land and off-site stables would be removed. Collectively, these benefits attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

[name] have explained above, I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework sets out that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (VSC). Paragraph 153 specifies that VSC will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal would harm the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The moderate benefits which would accrue from the proposal are not considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The VSC required to justify the proposal do not, therefore, exist.

For the reasons given above, 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.