Appeal 6006791

The appeal is dismissed.

Interested parties have stated that the training area is already being used for commercial purposes. However, I have made my assessment on the basis of the proposal before me, which is not described as retrospective. Any other matters in this regard fall to be addressed at a local level.

The appellants’ planning statement identified a slightly different location for the proposed parking spaces to that shown on the submitted plans. I have taken the submitted plans to be correct. This discrepancy has not affected my assessment of the proposal.

The main issues in this appeal are:  the effect of the proposal on highway safety;  whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; and  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

It is proposed to change the use of an equestrian training area from private to commercial. The facility would employ several members of staff, including directors, managers, an instructor and a stable hand. I have not been informed that any staff members would live on site, and therefore they would be expected to access the site by car. Given the site’s location, customers would also be likely to arrive by car. The proposed commercial use would therefore increase vehicular traffic to and from the site compared with the private use.

The existing access off [site address] is on a slight bend, and I observed on my site visit that visibility for drivers exiting the site is constrained in both directions. It has not been confirmed that the required visibility splays for a 40mph road could be achieved. The first section of the vehicular access appears to be wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other, but the access narrows beyond that point, making it difficult for two vehicles to pass each other, particularly if one of the vehicles was transporting horses. In the absence of vehicle tracking demonstrating otherwise, vehicles seeking to enter the site at the same time as vehicles are leaving could result a highway obstruction.

The Council’s parking standards require one space per stable for equestrian centres or, in other cases, an individual assessment. Although there are stables within the appellants’ land ownership, they are not within the red line, and in any case it seems to me that the parking requirement for a training facility would be dictated by the pattern of training sessions rather than the number of stables. An individual assessment is therefore needed but has not been provided, and it has not therefore been demonstrated that the provision of three parking spaces would cater adequately for the needs of the facility. As a result, there would be a risk of overflow parking which could give rise to inconsiderate parking on [site address] .

Policy INF1 of the MVLP requires applicants to set out how they propose to manage and mitigate the transport impacts of their development. Although the appellants have indicated a willingness to undertake a traffic assessment, no such assessment is before me. I cannot be certain therefore that the potentially adverse effects on highway safety which I have identified could be controlled.

Whilst not referred to in the reason for refusal, the Council has found conflict with the requirement in Policy EC7 of the MVLP for equestrian facilities to be close to an existing bridleway and open space network. Their concern is that the two nearest bridleways would require access from the highway, which could cause inconvenience or danger to other road users. However, it seems to me that access to bridleways is not an essential requirement since the training would be focussed on the manege, and there are paths within the site which could be utilised. I have not therefore found conflict with this aspect of Policy EC7.

On the basis of the evidence before me, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on highway safety, and it would therefore conflict with policies INF1 and INF2 of the MVLP. Together these policies require development proposals to be located so as to eliminate any unacceptable impact on highway safety, and for non-residential developments to provide a maximum number of off-street parking spaces in accordance with the Council’s standards.

The development plan and accompanying policies map identify the appeal site as lying within the Metropolitan Green Belt. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the land falls within an area of grey belt as defined in Annex 2 of the Framework or that it is subject to a proposal to remove it from the Green Belt through plan-making. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the site lies within the established Green Belt and that paragraph 155 of the Framework does not apply.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions set out in paragraph

The proposal is to change the use of an existing equestrian training area from private to commercial. It is not in dispute between the main parties, and on the basis of the evidence before me I find no reason to disagree, that it would constitute an appropriate facility for outdoor sport within paragraph 154(b) of the Framework.

In accordance with paragraph 154(b), such facilities must preserve the openness of the Green Belt and not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Policy EN1 (criterion 3d) and Policy EC7 (criterion 1a) of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2020-2039 [name] 2024 (MVLP) align with these Framework requirements.

Paragraph 154 identifies the five purposes that Green Belts serve. The proposal would not conflict with checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas since it is not located close to such an area. It would not conflict with the aim of preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another since the nearest town is some distance away. It would not encroach into the countryside since the manege already exists. It would not conflict with the purpose of preserving the setting and special character of historic towns since the site does not form part of the setting of such a town. Finally, the proposal would not conflict with urban regeneration as it would not recycle derelict or other urban land. The facility would not therefore conflict with any of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

Planning Practice Guidance advises on the factors to be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt1. It guides that, amongst other things, openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects, and that the degree of activity likely to be generated is a relevant consideration. A previous proposal for an equestrian training facility included six spotlights, which were found on appeal to have a harmful impact on both spatial and visual openness2. Spotlights do not form part of this proposal, and as no structures are proposed, the facility would not harm the spatial and visual aspects of openness.

Appropriate facilities for outdoor sport are by definition not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, meaning that a level of activity associated with them is compatible with Green Belt openness. The facility was constructed as a private training area and is therefore not large in scale, and it already generates a certain level of activity. It is necessary to assess how much the commercial use of the manege would intensify the existing level of activity and whether this would amount to harm to Green Belt openness.

The training facility would be operated on an appointment basis between 9am and 6pm seven days a week, with lessons lasting for 45 minutes to allow time for change overs. The appellants advise that bookings would be limited, structured 1 Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-013-20250225 2 PINS reference APP/C3620/W/24/3348019 and managed, with expectations that usage would fluctuate and remain modest, particularly during weekdays. Horses are already resident on site, removing the need for frequent horse box movements, and the appellants therefore consider that vehicular comings and goings would be intermittent and controlled.

The frequency of comings and goings by car would increase as staff arrive and leave each day, and as customers arrive for training sessions and subsequently depart. There would be more intensive use of the manege and the paths around it. Consequently, overall levels of activity would be higher than a private manege, including when the event days identified by the Council are taking place. However, as an outdoor facility without lighting, there would be natural ceiling on how intensively it could be used. Moreover, there would be daily and seasonal fluctuations in its use. There is nothing to conclusively indicate that a commercial manege would generate levels of activity beyond what might be expected from an outdoor sports facility of its type. I find, therefore, that the proposal would not generate a degree of activity that would harm the openness of the Green Belt.

Consequently, the proposal satisfies paragraph 154(b) of the Framework and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the policies in the Framework. It would accord with the relevant parts of policies EN1 and EC7 of the MVLP, the aims of which I have outlined above.

The site forms part of a cluster of dwellings and rural buildings within the countryside, with the immediate area having a relatively developed appearance as a result. The manege was constructed for private use and its scale reflects this. It benefits from natural screening which largely hides it in longer views, and its appearance would not change as a result. The proposal would therefore have a neutral effect on the appearance of the countryside.

The increased levels of activity associated with the commercial use of the manege would be apparent to adjoining residents and to people using nearby public rights of way. However, equestrian facilities are a common feature in the countryside, and such an increase in activity would not in itself dilute the area’s rural identity. The proposal would not therefore harm the area’s character.

I conclude that the proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with Policy EN4 of the MVLP, which sets out the Council’s approach to character and design by requiring development proposals to, amongst other things, retain landscape views and vistas. I have not found conflict with policies INF1 and INF2 of the MVLP which, as set out above, deal with the impact of parking and traffic on the highway network rather than on local character.

The proposal is suited to a rural location and would support the growth of a rural business which would employ a number of people. It would constitute a form of rural diversification, in accordance with the Framework.

The proposal would meet a need for a training facility which the appellants consider is not currently being met locally. The appellants’ staff have achieved the necessary professional qualifications to ensure they are appropriately trained, indicating that the business is credible and capable of ensuring the welfare of horses.

I have had regard to the fact that the appellants have responded to the previously-dismissed appeal by removing the proposed spotlights and reducing the amount of car parking.

However, none of these factors is sufficient to outweigh the harm to highway safety which I have identified.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.