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

clutton_2

am i the only one to be thinking

countryside - fields - leisure - animals - horses - vicarious pleasure - normal

Human Rights Act ???????

BitterAndTwisted

Depends on whether the new stables people will be slinging all that horsesh1t over the fence into the OP's garden........

clutton_2

horsey folks don't generally do that - they sell it for rose manure to towney folks

skintlass

Personally I'd love a stables on my doorstep. Why not go and visit a yard of a similar size and see what you think before getting worked up. Also, a visit to the neighbours might allay your fears.

bennybroadbean

Perhaps you could get a horse?! Stables on your door step and all!

I can't understand what the problem is? I would rather have a paddock with some horses in than a block of flats or new buildings in it. The grass isn't aways greener!

John_Pierpoint

Golf Driving Range -> Flood lit golf driving range -> Homebase warehouse

Reason? Local council screwed up their definition of "green belt".

I guess it depends where you live.

In the final analysis, with a rising population and increasing family breakdown, more "development" is required to house these households and mop up the unemployed. We will get a mixture of "town cramming", illegal settlement, subtle chipping away at the green belt, by stages (as above) and wholesale re-designation of areas of the countryside ("Eco towns") - just think what it is like to live in China.

Make too much of a fuss as an individual and you will get the midden of "toxic waste" (the droppings can contain nasty chemical residues these days) at the end of your garden, not theirs..

clutton_2

has OP talked to their neighbour about their plans ?

Morglin

I would have thought a green field is ideal for keeping horses and stabling them lol - and cannot see what the problem is.

I would be careful - if she doesn't get planning permission, she might just sell the land to a local travelling family, and then you'll have more than a few horses to deal with.:eek:

You'll have a virtual village, and any objections will fall on stony ground - they'll be there for life!

Lin

planning_officer

Hi DFC,

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

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?

True, although to a lesser extent than PPG2, as when development is proposed on Green Belt land, that is the most important constraint.

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

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?

Yes, GB is specifically designated - just around large conurbations, like London, Oxford, Birmingham etc, and yes, it would make a difference, especially with regard to the size of the building proposed for the stables (more strict in GB).

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

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.

If lighting forms part of the application, the case officer could get the applicant to remove the lighting if everything else was considered acceptable - it would have to be formally removed before granting any permission though, otherwise the applicant could argue permission had been granted for it, as a condition stipulating no lighting is allowed when the applicant had specifically proposed lighting would be 'ultra vires', i.e. of no use.

Having looked at the application again, as the suffix on the reference number is purely for a change of use, I'm wondering if the application is only for the change of use, and the stables and floodlighting are only indicative and would form part of a subsequent application. OP - I think you need to call the case officer and ask exactly what is being proposed here - and ask why this is a 'change of use application' and not a 'full application', which would include the change of use and the building work to create the stables and manege (sand paddock).

To the others who have posted above saying they can't see the problem with this - neither did I until I looked at the plans!! When you see them, the development is extremely close to the boundaries with a row of 7 houses (almost flush with their rear boundaries, and they don't have particularly long back gardens), and the floodlit riding arena would definitely cause light pollution and disturbance to the occupiers.

Also, whilst equestrian development is perfectly acceptable in rural areas and in the Green Belt, new buildings have to be essential - and as far as I can see, the applicant has provided no justification whatsoever to explain the need for these stables, or for the floodlighting. If the application is actually only for the change of use and not for the building works (despite it being in the title) then that may explain the poor quality of the sole plan submitted, and why no elevational drawings of the stables or floodlights seem to exist (unless the Council are too lazy to scan them onto the website!).

planning_officer

bennybroadbean wrote: »

I can't understand what the problem is? I would rather have a paddock with some horses in than a block of flats or new buildings in it. The grass isn't aways greener!

I think if the application was purely for a paddock, there would be no objection, but the application is actually for a hardsurfaced floodlit riding arena measuring 2200sqm almost flush with the boundaries of the neighbouring houses!!