- Decision
- allowed, 8 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Andrew Owen
- Authority
- Epping Forest (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6008989
- Application reference
- EPF/1215/25
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of c.14 ha of land to the keeping of horses (up to eight) for recreational purposes, no built development
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge, SSSI
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(f)(iii), N2, N6
- Development plan policies
- Epping Forest Local Plan 2023 DM1, DM4
- Main issues
- biodiversity
Summary
A change of use of about 14 ha of Green Belt land at Epping to recreational horse-keeping, with no built development. The appeal was allowed. The Green Belt point was uncontested: a material change of use with no structures falls within GB7(1)(f). The only main issue was biodiversity, which conditions resolved.
Issues and findings
- GB7(1)(f): not inappropriate. Under GB7, "material changes of use of land, or appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation, are not inappropriate, providing the impact on the openness of the Green Belt is minimised and there would not be a significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes. This is similar to the corresponding parts of the previous version of the Framework … As the proposal is for the keeping of horses only and does not include any built development such as fencing, buildings or equine related equipment, I have no reason to disagree" (DL ¶3). This correctly reflects the 2026 wording of GB7(1)(f), "not … a significant conflict", which is more lenient than the 2024 "not conflict".
- Biodiversity: acceptable. There was "no substantive evidence … such activities by just eight horses over the whole site would be harmful to its biodiversity, particularly with mitigation in place" (DL ¶13).
- Epping Forest SAC. Traffic would be "less than that generated by a single dwelling", so there was no likely significant effect (DL ¶14).
Planning balance
The scheme accorded with the development plan. No Green Belt balance arose (DL ¶24).
What made the difference
There was no built form, and the parties agreed on the Green Belt. Fencing, lighting and horse numbers were all controlled by condition, which kept the use within GB7(1)(f).
Transferable points
- A change of use to keeping horses without structures is a GB7(1)(f) material change of use and not inappropriate (DL ¶3).
- The 2026 GB7(1)(f) purposes test is "significant conflict" with purposes (DL ¶3). Contrast Harper Royd Lane (PINS-6003507), where the 2024 "does not conflict" wording was applied and any purpose (c) conflict defeated a stable.
- Concerns that a use is a precursor to housing are not material (DL ¶17).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(f)(iii) | pass | material change of use to keeping horses with no fencing, buildings or equipment → not inappropriate; agreed by parties (DL 3) | |
| N2 | pass | eight horses over 14 ha unlikely to harm neutral grassland/woodland; reptile mitigation, fencing details, stream buffer by condition (DL 5-13, 15) | |
| N6 | pass | Epping Forest SAC ZoI — negligible traffic (less than one dwelling) → no likely significant effect; NE air-quality tariff not appropriate (DL 14) |
Key facts
- About 14 ha of undeveloped woodland, grassland and scrub on the edge of Epping. Informally used by the public; applications pending to record rights of way
- The appellant is the housebuilder Wates. Objectors saw this as a precursor to housing, but that was not a material factor (DL 17)
- Conditions cap numbers at eight horses, ban external lighting and require approval of any fencing
Related decisions
Sources
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.