Land opposite 17 Harper Royd Lane, Sowerby Bridge (stable block)

Decision

dismissed, 28 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes

Authority

Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6003507

Application reference

25/01008/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Private stable block with fodder store and tack room, hardstanding and engineering works

Site context

green belt, open countryside, valued landscape

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(f)(iv), GB2(c), GB6(2)

Development plan policies

Calderdale Local Plan 2023 GB1, GN4

Main issues

inappropriate development; openness; Green Belt purposes; landscape character; VSC

Summary

A private stable on an open valley side in the Calderdale Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The stable was an outdoor recreation facility and was designed to minimise its effect on openness, but it failed GB7(1)(f) because a new isolated building on open land conflicts with Green Belt purpose (c), countryside encroachment. There was also landscape harm, and the limited private benefits did not amount to VSC.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The appeal was decided under the 2026 Framework. The parties had addressed Green Belt matters, so there was no prejudice (DL ¶2).
• GB7(1)(f)(iv) facility for outdoor recreation: YES. "The keeping and riding of horses for private recreational purposes can be treated as outdoor recreation" (DL ¶6).
• But GB7(1)(f) not met. "Policy GB7(1)(f) is not satisfied merely because a building is connected with outdoor recreation. The relevant exception applies only where the development minimises its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it" (DL ¶7). Caution: this is the 2024 wording. The August 2026 GB7(1)(f) reads "there would not be a significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes". The inspector did not ask whether the purpose (c) conflict was significant. Openness impact was minimised (DL ¶10). However, "the proposal would introduce a new isolated building into that setting. As such, it would conflict with the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment" (DL ¶11). Result: inappropriate (DL ¶12).
• Openness. The stable would cause spatial and visual harm (DL ¶8-9).
• Landscape. Harm to the Special Landscape Area: "The issue is not solely whether the building would appear incongruous, but whether its introduction would conserve or enhance the landscape character" (DL ¶16).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC. Limited weight each went to stabling (a private benefit), replacement of stabling that the extant house permission would remove, biodiversity, and local support (DL ¶18-21). Highways, drainage and amenity were neutral (DL ¶22). These did not clearly outweigh the substantial Green Belt harm plus landscape harm (DL ¶24).

What made the difference

The inspector read the purposes limb of GB7(1)(f) strictly, as "does not conflict", which is the 2024 wording. The 2026 text requires only that there be no significant conflict, and the letter does not engage with that change. It is therefore vulnerable, and weak authority on this point. Any new free-standing building on open land was held to be encroachment under purpose (c), even though the openness impact had been minimised. Siting next to the existing stable and manège, on already developed ground, would probably have avoided the purpose (c) conflict.

Transferable points

• Private horse-keeping counts as outdoor recreation for GB7(1)(f)(iv) (DL ¶6).
• GB7(1)(f) has two separate hurdles. Minimising the impact on openness is not enough if the building conflicts with a GB2 purpose (DL ¶7, ¶10-12). But the 2026 text asks about significant conflict, which this letter did not apply. Contrast Stonards Hill (PINS-6008989), where the inspector quoted the 2026 "significant conflict" wording.
• A new isolated building on undeveloped countryside conflicts with purpose (c), and nearby similar buildings do not change that (DL ¶11).
• Mainly private benefits attract no more than limited weight in a VSC balance (DL ¶18).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Stable sited on an undeveloped part of the holding next to the lane, apart from the existing stable and manège
• Set below road level, dark timber, low roof, but visible from the lane and across the valley
• The extant permission to replace the existing stable with a dwelling would remove the current stabling. That fallback need got only limited weight
• Local support from neighbours got limited weight

Related decisions

• PINS-6008062

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.