The Paddocks, Bridgnorth Road, Stourton

Decision

dismissed, 23 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D Marley

Authority

South Staffordshire (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6008866

Application reference

25/00721/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Erection of stables for the keeping of horses, with hardstanding, tarmac access, close-board fencing and gates (part retrospective)

Site context

green belt, open countryside

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB6(2), GB7(1)(f)(iv), DP3

Development plan policies

South Staffordshire Core Strategy 2012 GB1, EV7, EQ4

Main issues

inappropriate development; openness; character and appearance; highway safety; VSC

Summary

Part-retrospective stables, hardstanding, access and front close-board fencing on an equestrian site in the South Staffordshire Green Belt. Dismissed. The stable building was acceptable, but the close-board fencing meant the scheme did not "minimise" the impact on openness, so it fell outside the GB7(1)(f)(iv) outdoor recreation exception. Horse welfare benefits (moderate weight) did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were given the chance to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL ¶5).
• GB7(1)(f)(iv) outdoor recreation facilities: FAIL. Equestrian use is outdoor recreation, and enclosure, parking and turning "may in principle be appropriate facilities" (DL ¶11). But "the use of closeboard fencing would result in a sudden insertion of built form of a solid appearance on a largely undeveloped section of road … the proposal does not minimise the impact on the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶12). "even were I to conclude there would not be a significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes, the proposal would not fall within the identified exception" (DL ¶14).
• Permitted development claim. "It is open to the appellant to investigate whether elements of the proposal benefit from permitted development rights … it is not within my remit to determine whether parts of a development are lawful" (DL ¶15).
• Local plan consistency. "the requirement to preserve the openness of the Green Belt in Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy does not reflect the revised wording in the Framework" (DL ¶18), so very limited weight to that conflict. This did not reduce the substantial weight to Green Belt harm (DL ¶36).
• Character (DP3): moderate harm (DL ¶25).
• Highways (TR6): no harm (DL ¶32).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC. On one side, substantial weight to Green Belt harm and moderate weight to character harm. On the other, moderate weight to horse welfare, security and access, and limited weight to the scarcity of non-GB land, because "I see no reason why a proposal could not come forward which would both facilitate the objectives of the appellant and not result in harm" (DL ¶35). The benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm (DL ¶38).

What made the difference

The fence. The stable and the hard surfacing passed, but a solid close-board frontage on a verdant road was enough to fail the "minimised" test in GB7(1)(f), which is a stricter formulation than the old "preserve openness". Post-and-rail fencing, or hedging alone, would probably have brought the scheme within (f)(iv).

Transferable points

• GB7(1)(f) "impact on openness is minimised" is a distinct test. Failing it takes the scheme out of the exception even if there is no significant conflict with purposes (DL ¶14).
• Ancillary works (fencing, gates) are assessed as part of the application. An unresolved permitted development argument gets limited weight at s78 (DL ¶15).
• Local plan policies worded "preserve openness" are treated as not reflecting the 2026 Framework, so conflict with them gets very limited weight. This does not dilute GB6(2) substantial weight (DL ¶18, ¶36).
• The availability of a less harmful alternative scheme undercuts need-based VSC arguments (DL ¶35).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Stable block itself similar in size to a previous building on the site; Council raised no openness objection to the stable alone (DL 10)
• Close-board fencing along much of the road frontage, visible through gaps in hedgerow (DL 12)
• Hardcore base and tarmac access held not to reduce openness given limited profile (DL 13)
• Appellant claimed fence was permitted development; inspector said not within s78 remit, limited weight (DL 15)

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.