# 2 Park Farm, Park Road, Westoning

- **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard
- **Authority:** Central Bedfordshire (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007202
- **Application reference:** CB/25/03531/FULL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Hay store for equestrian use (retrospective)
- **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(iv)
- **Development plan policies:** Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 SP4
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, purposes
- **Tags:** equestrian, outdoor-recreation-facilities, openness-minimised-test, retrospective, intentional-unauthorised-development

## Summary
Retrospective hay store on an equestrian site at the edge of Westoning, in the Central Bedfordshire Green Belt. Allowed. The inspector held that the keeping of horses is outdoor recreation, and that GB7(1)(f)(iv) expressly covers buildings. A modest, contained store minimised the impact on openness and did not significantly conflict with the purposes, so it was not inappropriate development.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The parties commented, and the letter refers only to the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶3).
- **GB7(1)(f)(iv): PASS.** "It is unclear why the Council concludes that the proposal falls outside Policy GB7 1.f.iv simply because it takes the form of a building. That policy expressly provides for appropriate facilities, including buildings" (DL ¶6). "minimising impact on openness does not require land to remain entirely free from development" (DL ¶8). It does not conflict with the purposes "to any material degree, and certainly not to a significant extent" (DL ¶12).
- **DM8.2 intentional unauthorised development.** "There is no substantive evidence before me that the development was carried out intentionally to avoid planning control. Therefore, I give limited weight to the fact that the development has already taken place" (DL ¶15).

## Planning balance
Not inappropriate, so there was no VSC balance. The scheme complied with the development plan (DL ¶17).

## What made the difference
Small scale, an enclosed setting against existing built form, and a direct functional link to the established equestrian use. Compare PINS-6008866 (Stourton), where solid close-board frontage fencing failed the same "minimised" test.

## Transferable points
- The "minimised" test in GB7(1)(f) does not require zero built form (DL ¶8).
- Horse keeping and exercising is outdoor recreation, and buildings can qualify under (f)(iv) (DL ¶6-7).
- DM8.2 substantial weight to intentional unauthorised development needs evidence of intent. Without it, the retrospective nature gets limited weight (DL ¶14-15).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** keeping and exercising horses is outdoor recreation; the policy expressly includes buildings; modest dark-timber store in a contained equestrian site minimises impact on openness; no significant conflict with purposes (DL 5-13)
- **DM8: neutral (limited weight).** no evidence that the unauthorised development was intentional, so limited weight to the retrospective nature rather than DM8.2 substantial weight (DL 14-15)

## Key facts
- Established equestrian site with stables, paddocks, ménage and hardstanding (DL 6)
- Site contained by residential, equestrian and farm development on the settlement edge (DL 8, 11)
- Hay store moved to its current spot to stop the paddock becoming muddy (DL 15)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007202
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c23527d3-1e19-4ae0-a7f4-9b76da462593

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007202.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.