Green Belt appeal decisions
Stables & riding schools
Updated 11 May 2007, this page includes various recent decisions on appeals against refusal of planning consent. Summarises of appeal decisions arising from refusal of planning consent are available at www.Planning Reource.co,uk/dcs, with a copy of the decision letter also available for a fee.
'SoS' = Secretary of State. 'DETR' is now ‘DCLG’ = Dept for Communities and Local Government.
Equestrian facilities allowed in Lancs GB. It would provide an attractive recreational facility in a countryside
setting the Inspector said. Inert waste
would be imported to create landforms including a showground, stables and a
cross-country track for horses. The
council argued the landfill was incompatible with GB policy but the Inspector
disagreed since it would have to go into a landfill site. The effect on openness was neutral and would
diversify the farm enterprise. The high
quality facilities would serve a large
Mobile home, stables and workshop allowed in
House refused at stables.
Not in the GB but of
interest. The Inspector rejected an
appeal for a dwelling at a Cambridgeshire stud farm. Security and well-being of the horses was a
material consideration at this site outside any settlement, there was no
evidence of consideration of CCTV and alarms.
Stables approved in
Extra stables refused at Merseyside GB. The farm had 4 stables and 4.25 ha grazing
pasture. The proposed addition of 4 more
stables would create a run 30m long with a storage building alongside. The inspector decided this would not comply
Keeping & breeding horses not agricultural use. This use did not fall within the definition of
agriculture with citing of
Stables and ménage refused in
removed from stables in
Worcs GB equestrian hospital approved - modern farm buildings
can be converted into an equestrian hospital. The Inspector decided it would
not harm the openness of the GB. It was compatible with GB policy but
permission did limit the hours of use. The LA was concerned that, combined with
other existing and approved uses of the farm, it might affect highway safety
and the GB.
Stable use restrictions are valid - A Cheshire GB farm
received planning permission in 1999 for a stable block, restricting use for
keeping & breeding horses. The appellant said the condition was not
sufficiently precise to to clear and enforceable. The condition said it could
not be used for agriculture including keeping livestock, was for the private
enjoyment of the owners and not for trade or business, with horse breeding only
by people living in nearby dwellings. The Inspector decided this was clear and
enorceable, and prevented any reversion to agricultural use. He did permit an
alteration allowing up to 20 mares and 4 permanent liveries, but not a riding
school or riding centre.
'Storage' building for GB paddock refused - Located in the Worcs.
GB, a two-storey timber building was used to store wire, wooden posts, creosote
etc for the maintenance of a 0.6ha paddock for two horses. The Inspector agreed
that the land was used for recreation but it already had a tack room, two
stables and an open feed and bedding store. The Appellant's house was nearby so
the building was not essential for paddock maintenance, and the first floor
balcony suggested a non-essentail purpose. The appeal was refused. Wyre Forset
Horse breeding and training centre inappropriate in GB - Near
Livery stables redevelopment refused - Former livery stables in
the Brostol green belt cannot be redeveloped for housing. the Inspector ruled
that the previous use was more akin to agriculture than urban develeopment
within a built-up area. On the edge of a vilage near Clevedon, the 0.8ha site
contained livery stanles, tack rooms, kennels & grazing paddocks. The
Commercial stables enforcement order upheld - Although the Inspector
upheld the order requiring a cessation of use of Green Belt land &
buildings for this use, he gave the appellant more time to produce an
acceptable scheme. On planning merits the inspector thought horse stabling
could continue provided no business activity took place. Because there was no
limit on the number of horses, and they could belong to family members and
friends, there was an impact on the amenity of residents unless action was
taken. By giving a 12 month compliance period, the appellant had time to make a
planning application limiting the number of porses and provide adequate truning
facilities and landscaping.
Increased number of horses rejected at stables - A condition limited 8
stables (4 daytime plus 4 nighttime)to use by 4 horses was upheld for a 0.7ha
Stables rejected - not small scale
The Inspector refused an 8 horse stable block in the Notts green
belt because it was not a small-scale facilioty associated with sports and
recreation. At 39m length it was inappropriate being an intrusive feature
eroding the openness of the green belt. No very special circumstances had been
23 stables allowed in Green belt
The Inspector allowed 23 stables at a farm in the Cheshire Green Belt.
The owner of the land is to use them for rearing and training horses for the
family's own enjoyment. Being for sport and recreational use they were
appropriate in the Green Belt. A condition restricted the stabling of horses
for the personal enjoyment of the occupants of the farm only.
Stable conversion refused being a major reconstruction
stable in the Green Belt cannot be converted into a doctor's surgery. A survey
report suggested structural adequacy for conversion but the Inspector noted the
report gave few details of the work or repairs required. It did require a new
roof, strengthening and partial rebuilding the walls. Add to that 2 new
windows, replacement of an open-fronted canopy with a glazed corridor, and the
Inspector concluded it was a major reconstruction, contrary to Green belt
policy. It would harm the rural character of the area.
Stables too large.
Stables and a hayloft were rejected on the basis of
Riding school and animal sanctuary approved
The SoS approved their continuation at a Cilterns farm following
the High Court's decision to quash a previous appeal decision. It was now
agreed that the openness of the countryside would not be affected. Approval was
restricted to 9 horses and 2 residential caravans. Dacorum BC
Horse shelter approved in Green Belt
the Inspector agreed that the 3 ponies should have shelter from
the elements throughout the year, and that it was small and unobtrusive so it
preserved the openness of the Green Belt. The local authority had refused
permission because of an existing stable on the land. East
Indoor riding arena refused in the green belt
High Court upheld the Inspector's decision to refuse an indoor equestrian sports
centre in Barnet, despite claims that the inquiry had been unfair. Barnet
refused permission because the building floor area increase from 1,865 sqm to
7,830 sqm shifted the balance from outdoor to indoor activities, making it
inappropriate in the green belt. The original Inspector fell ill and Belmont
Riding Centre Ltd claimed that the handover notes, for the replacement
Inspector, were insufficient. The judge disagreed. Ref CO/4539/1999.
Stable owner refused permission for a residential development in the Green Belt.
The owner of a livery stable failed at the High Court to overrule a planning inspector's refusal to allow residential development. The inspector agreed with Solihull MBC in refusing outline permission to build a house and residentail annex for occupation by staff or students working or training at the stables. The present operation relied heavily on the personal success of the owner in the specialised field of competitive show-jumping and was unlikely to continue in its present form after the owner's personal involvement ceased. The judge agreed that the livery business could continue in its present state without the residential accommodation proposed.
refused to move a racing stable closer to the gallops on green belt land in an
area of outstanding natural beauty. DETR said the advantages of relocation were
insufficient to count as a very special circumstance. They are currently in a
100 year o ld stables, which the owners said were a non-conforming use in a
largely residential area, and the horses 200m trip to the gallops along a
public road is dangerous. Cannock Chase DC said the proposals were not small,
as required by