Appeal 6007142

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed development has already been implemented, in that stables and a manège have been constructed, perimeter fencing has been erected, and horses occupy the site. I shall therefore determine the appeal on this basis, noting that the scheme is not subject to any mandatory requirement to deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain. For the avoidance of doubt, I have removed the term “retrospective application” from the development description, as this does not constitute an act of development.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted a revised site plan1 annotated to show the intended provision of timber post-and-rail fencing along sections of the site’s southern, eastern, and northern boundaries for the purpose of confining horse movements. Given that these amendments are minor, and that the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the revised plan at appeal stage, I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by its submission. I am therefore content to accept it for determination purposes. For clarity, the proposed fencing could be secured via planning condition in the event that the appeal was to succeed.

At the final comments stage, in response to matters raised in the Council’s Appeal Statement, the appellant sought to introduce further evidence, including revised documents and an updated biodiversity metric intended to demonstrate biodiversity net gain. However, accepting new or revised evidence at such a late stage – particularly evidence central to the determining issues – without affording other parties the opportunity to respond would create a clear risk of procedural unfairness. Accordingly, while the appellant has been able to respond in writing to the Council’s points, no new standalone supporting documents submitted at final 1 Ref: 1826-AL04E, supersedes 1826-AL04D comments stage have been accepted for determination purposes. The sole exception is an updated, signed [name] (the UU).

The UU, dated 18 May 2026 and signed by relevant landowners, seeks to secure the delivery of biodiversity net gain measures alongside the payment of a monitoring fee. I return to the UU later in this decision.

The site lies within the Green Belt. However, the parties agree that the appeal proposal does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I see no reason to disagree and, accordingly, Green Belt matters are not hereby dealt with under a main issue in this appeal.

The main issue is: • The effect upon biodiversity.

The site is environmentally sensitive, being at least partially covered by a Woodland Tree Preservation Order2 that extends across a wider, predominantly wooded area to the south. The habitats on and around the site are principally broadleaved woodland and modified grassland.

Policy N4 of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 (June 2014) (The Plan) sets out that the Borough’s natural environment will be protected, enhanced and improved via a variety of provisions. One such provision requires that, where damage to the natural environment is unavoidable, development must incorporate mitigation and/or compensatory measures, through the establishment of replacement habitats or features, including appropriate site management regimes. Similarly, the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) requires that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other provisions, minimising impacts and securing net gains for biodiversity.

It is relevant that the development proposal follows a previous, dismissed appeal3 relating to development of the same description on the same site. In that case, the Inspector identified harm to biodiversity and conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.

The previous Inspector noted that, although aerial imagery suggested that the land on which the manège and stables now stand was not covered by a large number of trees prior to development, the introduction of the access track, manège, and stables would inevitably have resulted in habitat loss and harm. Further, without considering in detail the merits of the approach put before them at that time to deliver a biodiversity net gain, they concluded that off-site biodiversity improvements could not reasonably be secured via condition without firm assurances regarding landowner agreement. I see no reason to depart from these findings.

Both the Biodiversity Net Gain Feasibility Assessment (November 2025) (the BNGFA) and [name] and Monitoring Plan (November 2025) 2 Tree Preservation Order No 276-2003 3 [name]/Y3425/W/25/3361882, dismissed 2 July 2025 (the HMMP) refer to a range of woodland management measures, including grazing exclusions, restoration of functioning understorey, and removal of non-native conifers. Whilst these measures are positive, no biodiversity uplift has been attributed to woodland areas, which are instead treated as retained habitat. This reflects a sound precautionary approach, acknowledging that the baseline for calculating net gain must represent pre-development conditions.

The delivery of biodiversity net gain is therefore heavily dependent on a grassland enhancement strategy aimed at transforming modified grassland into species-rich neutral grassland over a 10-30 year period. Proposed measures include annual removal of hay cuttings, establishment of yellow rattle, targeted weed control, and species diversification. The Statutory Biodiversity Metric4 predicts an overall uplift of 16.91% in area habitat units.

However, the Post-Development Habitat Map5 – which defines the location and extents of habitats – is flawed. It identifies woodland and/or neutral grassland in areas located close to the stables and manège (including along the access track) that would be enclosed via a mixture of existing perimeter treatments and new post and rail fencing. These areas would inevitably be subject to grazing, trampling, and disturbance from operational activity. As a result, the full implementation of the woodland and grassland management measures identified in the BNGFA and the HMMP would not be achievable in practice within those mapped areas.

The appellant contends that even if these enclosed areas were excluded from the biodiversity calculations, a net gain could still be achieved. Reference has been made to material submitted in connection with a separate enforcement appeal6, suggesting that a modest net gain of 0.9% would remain achievable. However, comprehensive detailed supporting evidence is not before me. Moreover, the UU lacks precision, as it does not clearly identify which version of the BNGFA or HMMP is to be relied upon. The versions currently before me, I note, are based on a flawed habitat map.

It has been indicated that any deficiencies could potentially be addressed by imposing a planning condition requiring the submission of updated biodiversity documentation within a specified timeframe following any grant of permission. However, where proposed enhancements involve land falling outside of the appellant’s control, it is imperative that all such measures – together with management and monitoring arrangements – are clearly secured through a legally binding agreement at the point of decision. This approach aligns with the conclusions of the previous Inspector.

For the above reasons, it has not been demonstrated that the development would acceptably mitigate harm to biodiversity or deliver a biodiversity net gain. The scheme conflicts with Policy N4 of The Plan and with the natural environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework in so far as these policies seek to minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. 4 Completed 11 December 2025 5 Ref: 25_435 01, dated 9 January 2026 6 Ref: 6009968

I have noted concerns raised in respect to matters that include animal welfare, land ownership, tree losses, and manure management. However, as I have found the appeal proposal to be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to examine such matters in detail. Moreover, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.