My neighbour wants to build stables/sand paddock on green belt land. WHAT CAN I DO?

i1189

I don't think six stables is enough to start a stud farm or a proper livery yard. The only thing you could do with a yard that size is to keep horses of your own or to take the odd one in for training. So I wouldn't panic too much about it being a large scale commercial venture.

Grrra

Hi i1189, Thanks for that input - much appreciated. From what you have said it has allayed our fears somewhat... I guess you can imagine what was going thru our minds... so thanks again.

DVardysShadow

Gregoryl wrote: »

Hi i1189, Thanks for that input - much appreciated. From what you have said it has allayed our fears somewhat... I guess you can imagine what was going thru our minds... so thanks again.

So reading between the lines, this is more about what it could develop into rather than what is proposed? Firstly, I think that the development is possibly better than say an oil terminal, a bail hostel or a modern high density housing estate. As for house values, perhaps indulgent parents with a horse mad daughter would see the location as a plus.

Perhaps the right avenue is to pursue getting planning conditions put in place which restrict the development to an acceptable scale.

nervousftb_3

just to reiterate what has been said, yes 6 stables and one arena is far too small to run as a commercial venture (i guess they may in the future apply for further permission to extend, but then again they may not!). also, horses make pretty good neighbours in my experience as they are pretty much silent the majority of the time. and as mentioned above, there are much worse things to look out over than a field of grazing horses or a horse being ridden in an arena (as a horse-owner myself that is a completely biased statement though!)

planning_officer

Firstly, the site is within the Green Belt where equestrian development can be acceptable in principle - rather than look at the relevant policies of the Local Plan you need to look at Central Government guidance on Green Belts, contained in PPG2 (at www.communities.gov.uk). The relevant Local Plan Policy (E2) concerning development in the Green Belt in the Lancaster Local Plan was not saved beyond Sept 2007 (as Councils were not allowed to 'save' policies that just repeated national guidance) - the most relevant guidance is therefore in PPG2. I can't find Policy L3 anywhere in the Lancaster Local Plan, although I did come across Policy R10, which is to do with equestrian development, although it's of limited relevance as it is not specific to Green Belt areas.

You say the planning application is for 6 stables, tack room, feed store and sand paddock. I work in a District with a lot of equestrian development (all in the Green Belt) and I've never heard of a sand paddock - I presume this is the same as a manege - which is usually surfaced with sand, the standard size for which is 20m by 40m, so your 40m by 55m sounds pretty big! You also say that the owner constructed a paddock with fence posts - do you mean she just fenced of an area of the field? If that's the case, no, planning permission would not be required for fencing, provided it is less than 2m in height. If she's changed the use of the land from agriculture to an equestrian use, then yes - planning permission would have been required. Equestrian uses are not covered in the definition of agriculture, as horses do not graze on the land - feed is brought onto the land for them.

Getting back to the issue of the current planning application, this is not an application for a business use, as the application is entitled 'for private use'. Whether she will want to turn it into a business in the future is not therefore a relevant issue, and I would not waste time objecting on this point. The Council can only assess the application as submitted - i.e. for private use only.

New buildings in the Green Belt have to be one of the acceptable forms of development, listed in Paragraph 3.4 of PPG2. One of these categories is 'essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation'. Therefore, the stables etc have to be essential for the equestrian use of the land. The applicant will have to have justified the size and number of the stables in order for it to be granted permission. Furthermore, PPG2 gives examples of such facilities as including 'small stables' (Paragraph 3.5). At my Council, six stables, a feed store and tack room would be pushing the limit of what we consider to be 'small'. In fact, most equestrian development of that scale in the Green Belt in my District would be refused, unless the applicant came up with an incredibly robust justification that it was 'essential' (and not just desirable).

However, floodlighting of a menage is a definite no at my authority - and most proposals for floodlighting in the Green Belt are refused, so I would be very surprised if this was allowed, as it seriously affects the rural character of the land.

In summary, the change of use of the land to an equestrian use and the laying out of the 'sand paddock' are likely to be acceptable in principle, as they don't affect the openness of the Green Belt. However, in my opinion the floodlighting is much more controversial and could well be objectionable, and the size of the stables to me does not sound 'small' in order to comply with PPG2, although different Councils do interpret the requirement to be 'small' in different ways.

A few other points - forget about objecting on Human Rights grounds as that's a waste of your time. The Courts have held that the planning system on the whole complies with the Human Rights legislation, so it's not going to get refused on those grounds. If you really want to object (and it sounds like you're not really sure what to object to - so not too sure exactly what your concerns are), then concentrate on:
- the size and number of the stables not being essential or small, in terms of PPG2, therefore harming the openness of the Green Belt;
- the floodlighting harming the rural character of the area;
- the floodlighting affecting the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring houses.

They really are the only valid three planning related objections that you going to get anywhere with. I wouldn't bother objecting on the grounds of increased activity, e.g. horse boxes etc, as it's for private use, as will be conditioned on any planning permission to only be used for private use, and not for a commercial livery yard (even though, like others have said, there's no way a six stable livery yard would be commercially viable!).

I wouldn't waste your money either going to a private planning consultant to make up some objections for you - you should really just object as you see fit (i.e. on the genuine grounds that you feel this development will affect you). I deal with this kind of development on a regular basis and a private consultant will not tell you anything different to what I've said above (apart from charging you to hear it!).

Although, having said all that, equestrian development is acceptable in principle in the Green Belt and there's no point objecting to the principle. In my opinion, some well designed rural stables would be far more pleasant to look at than a couple of large utilitarian agricultural barns, which may be an alternative if the land reverts back to being used for agriculture!

planning_officer

Further to the above, I have just found the planning application on the Lancaster CC website - I won't post the address, but here are some more specific comments for you:

If the access is not already existing to the site (between Nos. 20 and 22) or is currently just a field access, then this is likely to result in either a new access or an intensification of an existing access that could result in vehicular disturbance to the occupiers of No. 22 (as the applicant has indicated they own No. 20). Also, I can appreciate that the sand paddock is very close to that row of 7 houses (in particular 6 of them), so I do think that would cause some disturbance and loss of amenity to the occupiers of those houses - particularly from the floodlighting, which looking the location plan I think would be highly objectionable. Also, if the area directly in front of the stables is going to be a yard (hardstanding of some sort) then that seems quite large and could well be detrimental to the rural character of the locality and the openness of the Green Belt. The stables would also be highly visible from the public footpath running SW-NE to the north of the site (assuming that's what the dotted lines denotes). Finally, I think the Highway Authority may have something to say about the access to this development being taken from the end of a small residential cul-de-sac, as the road may not be suitable for an intensification of equestrian traffic. If you do object, I would also comment on the lack of detail shown on the plan - as there do not seem to be any plans of the stables or floodlights. I see someone else has already written in to say that exact comment!

Debt_Free_Chick

PO - according to the first post, the application is for change of use of "agricultural" land to equestrian, so I guess that PPS 7 is also relevant to this application?

Is "Green Belt" specifically designated as such? Some people refer to "green belt" simply to reference any green space, but I thought that formal Green Belt had to be specially earmarked by the Local Planning Authority (Council). If so, and this has not been so designated, does that make a difference to the treatment of the application?

I live in a rural area and none of the land has been designated as GB - but it's pretty much exclusively agricultural (with some equestrian).

If floodlighting is the only sticking point, then it could be that the application is approved with a condition attached - either for no lighting of any description, or for some restricted floodlighting.

The access is an interesting point too. Surely there's already some access to that field and that it existed before the residential development? If so, there is then the question of whether increased use of the existing access is envisaged. If no increase in "traffic" is expected and no change to the existing access envisaged, would an objection on those grounds carry much weight?

Just musings ..... although my initial reaction was that this kind of application is likely to be granted. It almost certainly would in my Parish, which is probably in excess of 95% agricultural.

RLH33

My God, having looked at the application on the website I am astounded that it was ever registered in the first place, the level of information is absolutely useless.

OP - in your initial comments you do come across as a bit of a nimby but having looked at the plans, and the location of the proposed stables and arena, I now think you are right to be worried.

I would object on the grounds that:

Lack of information means that it is impossible to assess the impact of the development both on the neighbouring dwellings and the surrounding countryside/green belt (if it really is in the green belt - you need to find this out for certain). For example - Is the land being levelled/built up to get a level surface for the arena? Where is the information to explain how the development will work, if this came across my desk I would want at least a few paragraphs explaining who will use it, whether there are any liveries proposed, will the arena be rented out, will she be training/teaching other riders at the site even if they are on her horses, will she be employing a groom etc etc to give an idea of the level of use that is being proposed - to say it is 'private' is imo not sufficient.

A big question though is - where is the storage? Although two very small rooms are shown that are not stables they seem far too small for the tack, hay, straw, shavings etc for 6 horses who will need a lot of equipment etc and a large barn to store it all in - if it isn't stored on site then it will need to be brought in from elsewhere on a regular basis meaning more disturbance, more traffic, more noise.

More information is needed on the proposed access - does it exist at the moment? To be honest even if it does then its use is bound to be increased to a level that would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity on the adjoining neighbour. Although 6 stables is not a large development it is not small either and the additional traffic that would result could be quite significant and I would imagine the highways officer will be concerned.

The area in front of the stables seems quite excessive and I would say that this would be unacceptable as it increases the built elements of the development to an unacceptable degree which would have a further impact on the green belt/surrounding countryside.

The floodlighting is a tricky one. The proximity of the arena to the houses is very worrying if floodlighting is proposed. I would say it is too close and lightspill would have an impact on residential amenity. I would have thought a lighting report will be needed but environmental health have not considered this necessary - their comments are quite flimsy actually, on the one hand they say they want details but on the other say a condition limiting hours of use is adequate. Essentially this means that they are not particularly worried about the impact of the lighting and that permission can be granted but they want details before development commences.

However without at least basic details of the number of lights, height of columns, location etc how can they honestly come to the conclusion that the lighting is ok - what happens when the condition comes to be discharged and they are proposing massive columns, loads of light spill etc etc, it is too late to argue they are unacceptable then as the principle has been agreed as part of the application and you are effectively trying to shut the door after the horse is bolted (pun intended)!! I would expect the condition suggested by Environmental Health to just deal with the technical details of the lights i.e. what type rather than the whole scheme.

Also the proximity of the arena to the houses would be worrying from a noise/disturbance point of view. Depending on the existing/proposed screening, if there is any, the impact could be quite small or it could be quite big. If there is no screening, including on the boundaries of the houses, then you could argue that noise from the use of the arena could be quite intrusive - especially if teaching is going to be going on, don't underestimate the noise from an instructor shouting for an hour whilst teaching - and they have to shout as otherwise they wouldn't be heard.

Sorry that was a long post!! For your info I have a horse and I am a Planning Officer in a Local Authority so can appreciate the problems/impact from both sides of the fence as it were.

Grrra

WOW! What can I say... thank you, thank you and thank you again!!

I have looked at PPG2 and found the following:

Intentions of policy

1.4 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness.

Purposes of including land in Green Belts
1.5 ...to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

The use of land in Green Belts

1.6

Once Green Belts have been defined, the use of land in them has a positive role to play in

fulfilling the following objectives:

1)to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population;
2) to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas;
3)to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live;
4)to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;
5) to secure nature conservation interest; and

6) to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

Please correct me if I am wrong but, whilst No.2 would apply, I believe that Nos. 3,5 and 6 would also apply..?

Section3.5

Essential facilities (see second indent of paragraph 3.4) should be genuinely required for uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. Possible examples... small stables for outdoorsport and outdoor recreation. I don't think 8 buildings is 'small'.

Visual amenity

3.15

The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for

development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design.

2700square metres removed from the Green belt is (in my opinion) not acceptable.
Regarding the 'paddock', yes, you are correct it is a fenced area of a field with an 'electric fence'.
I do really want to object to this development concerning the openess/rural character - sand as opposed to green grass which will run beside a row of 7 houses - increased noise/traffic. The stables will be highly visible.

Never having made any planning objection before this is all new to me - totally agree with the lack of information provided. The land is in the 'green belt' - followed the directions from Lancashire CC to a mapping program 'MARIO'. Also it is ID, 5.1 Landscape Protection from Lancaster District Plan (4/9/08). Interestingly, at the top of the field (approx 50m) from the edge of the proposal is land designated ANOB.

The owner is a business woman, a qualified horse trainer and judge for competition horses.
Never thought about the storage problem...
Access - good question. The access that is currently used is between the houses which is the width of a car (approx). It certainly would have a detrimental impact. We live a large housing estate thru which proposer would have to use. Two horse vans are parked at the front of the house. The only other access lies over 1km away across fields.
Regarding the very close proximity of the arena - there is no existing screening - we all enjoy the greenary/openess of the environment that we live in and we don't wish to see it harmed in any way.
Really appreciate all the help you are providing - many many thanks!

Long post - so apologies and sorry about the 'fonts'...

amcluesent

Why not get a DVD of Equus and pop that through their letter-box, together with a warning letter made from words cut from newspapers?