Appeal 6007812

The appeal is dismissed.

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the appeal form and decision notice as this appears to more accurately reflect the location of the site than that given on the application form.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the application form as neither party has provided written confirmation that a revised description has been agreed.

At the time of my site visit, the new vehicular access had been constructed and appeared to accord with the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the design and scale of the building.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the keeping of horses on the land is an appropriate use, that a stable building is an acceptable form of development in this location, that the site is capable of supporting equestrian activity and that the access arrangements are safe. I have no reason to disagree.

As a result, the development complies with criteria a, b, c, d, and e to Policy 32 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 January 2016 (LP). The development therefore falls to be considered against criteria f, g and h. These state that the building should be of a scale that reflects the number of horses to be kept, should be built of materials that are capable of being easily removed if the equine-related use ceases and, that any ancillary use, such as a tack room or food storage structure should be the minimum required to meet the functional needs of the horses on site and should not give rise to security issues.

With regard to criteria f and the building reflecting the number of horses to be kept, the appellant states that it is intended for the family’s private use including the stabling of two event horses. The evidence before me does not specifically identify the keeping of three horses, and I note that the appellants [name] on [name] of Case states that ‘the scale and layout of the building is based on the operational and welfare needs of two event horses.’ Given this, I have not been provided with substantive evidence justifying the inclusion of 3 stables within the building.

Turning to criteria g, this requires that the building is built of materials that are capable of being easily removed. In this regard, I note LP paragraphs 10.234 and 10.235 that state that stables ‘should be built, as far as possible, so that they can be removed when they are no longer needed’ and that ‘Shelters and stables should ideally be built of wood or other similar lightweight materials, although a concrete base may be acceptable where this is required for the safety and comfort of the horses.’ Paragraph 10.235 further states that ‘New stables of stone, brick, or block work will not generally be permitted for private use...’

In light of this, I find that where LP Policy 32 states that stables should be built in materials that are capable of being easily removed, this seeks to refer to wood or similar lightweight materials. Given that the building is proposed from rendered blockwork that would be harder to remove, and in the absence of any substantive evidence from the appellant detailing why the use of timber or other lightweight materials could not be used, I find that the development is not constructed from materials that are capable of being easily removed. While rendered blockwork could be removed and the land restored should the use cease, given the more permanent nature of the blockwork and render, and greater effort and resources needed to remove them in comparison to timber or other lightweight materials, this does not change my decision that rendered blockwork would not be easily removed. This would be the case despite the British Horse Society (BHS) guidance noting that blockwork stables are a typical form.

[name] have had regard to the [name] and agricultural building to the rear of Silton Village Hall being constructed from blockwork and render, I have limited information in relation to the history of these buildings. Moreover, I note that the equestrian stables are set within/adjacent to a residential curtilage with the agricultural building to the rear of the village hall not fully finished in render. As a result, I cannot be sure that they are directly comparable. Additionally, I am required to consider the appeal on its merits.

Finally, with regard to criteria h to LP Policy 32 and ancillary uses being the minimum required to meet the functional needs of the horses on site, I accept that event horses need greater space and that the BHS stable-size guidance relates to minimum dimensions. Given this, I do not find the size of the individual stable areas to be excessive in themselves. I also accept the need for a tack room and storage room, including space for medicine suitable to cater for event horses.

However, and despite the need for multiple sets of tack, rugs, boots, grooming equipment, clipping kit, competition gear and space for bulk storage, I have not been provided with substantive evidence demonstrating that the size of the tack room, storage room and medicine area are the minimum required. In relation to this I have had regard to LP paragraph 10.236 that states that the amount of tack stored should be kept to a minimum for security reasons. Furthermore, given that the appellant states that the shower could be removed from the development, it has not been demonstrated that this space is the minimum required.

It follows from the above that although I accept the need for stables on the site, the evidence before me does not adequately justify the size of the building. In particular, this relates to the need for 3 stables and to the size of the ancillary rooms. Furthermore, I do not find the use of rendered blockwork to be capable of being easily removed.

As a result of the above, the building, by reason of a combination of its scale, footprint and form comprising render under a slate pitched-roof would be of a domestic-style scale and nature. Accordingly, and given that the building would project into the field and be visible through the access, the development would introduce a stark built form that would be alien to the rural character and appearance of the immediate area that comprises gently undulating pasture and hedgerow-bounded fields interspersed by sporadic farmsteads and dwellings. This would be the case even if parts of the building were clad in timber given its scale and reliance upon rendered blockwork. Moreover, given the position of the building and need to access it by vehicle, I am not convinced that landscaping of the site would be possible to an extent that would suitably screen the building through the access.

[name] have had regard to the presence of shipping containers on the site that could be removed if the development was allowed, I have been advised that these do not benefit from planning permission. As such I give their presence limited weight. In any case, compared to the appeal building, they occupy a smaller footprint, are lower in height and partly screened from the access given their linear position immediately adjacent to boundary planting.

In conclusion, the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the design and scale of the building. As such, it is contrary to [name] 4, 20, 24 and 32. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that the impact on the landscape has been mitigated, that development is of a type appropriate in the countryside, designed to improve the character and quality of the area, is of a scale that reflects the number of horses to be kept, built of materials that are capable of being easily removed with ancillary uses the minimum required to meet the functional need. For the same reasons, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that seeks to achieve well-designed places.

I have had regard to the appellant stating that the development would cause no harm to highway safety, living conditions, flood risk, or ecology. It is noteworthy that the Council raise no concerns in these regards. However, as these are requirements of local and national planning policy and guidance, I give them very little weight in support of the proposal.

I acknowledge that the appellant raises concerns with regard to the Council not working in a positive, proactive and creative way in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Framework. In relation to this the Council has explained why it does not believe that conditions would overcome its concerns and this accords with my findings above. Additionally, I am required to consider the appeal on its planning merits. As such, I give this little weight.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.