# Grove Farm (Harefield Grove), Rickmansworth Road, Harefield - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Bennett - **Authority:** Hillingdon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010520 - **Application reference:** 70328/APP/2023/1772 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of former chicken sheds and fields to a dog training and daycare centre (up to 60 dogs), with car park and post-and-mesh fencing - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S5(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 2012 EM8, Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 2020 DME7, DMHB11, London Plan 2021 D14 - **Main issues:** living conditions (noise), Green Belt (raised by Inspector), S5 balance - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, gb7-1-f-outdoor-recreation, s5-1-b-rural-business, substantially-outweighed, noise, retrospective, inspector-raised-own-ground ## Summary A retrospective dog training and daycare use in former chicken sheds and fields in the Green Belt. The Council did not refuse on GB grounds, but the Inspector examined them. The building reuse fell within GB7(1)(b), and the field use, fencing and car park within GB7(1)(f)(iii)/(iv), so the scheme was not inappropriate. The appeal was nonetheless dismissed on noise at a nearby dwelling under P3: the benefits were "substantially outweighed" in the S5 balance. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to consider the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL ¶6). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS** for reuse of the sheds (DL ¶29). - **GB7(1)(f)(iii)/(iv): PASS.** "the use of the field for dog training purposes has a negligible impact on spatial and visual openness" (DL ¶33). "the impact on the openness of the Green Belt has been minimised and neither the carpark, post and mesh fencing, nor the change of use of the field results in any significant conflict with the five Green Belt purposes" (DL ¶36). - **Noise / P3: FAIL.** "Given the close proximity of the outdoor training area to the boundary with Cottage House, I find that material noise disturbance is likely" (DL ¶22). "I cannot be satisfied that the level of attenuation suggested by the appellant would be achieved" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance The Inspector applied S3 → S5 (not S5(5) expressly) and found an S5(1)(b) rural business category. Substantial weight was given to the economic benefits and to the P3 conflict. "the benefits of the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶51). ## What made the difference A single neighbour-amenity issue, backed by a credible technical rebuttal of the noise assessment (impulsive character of barking, over-optimistic barrier attenuation). Green Belt was not an obstacle. Better noise evidence, or no dwelling within 8 m, would likely have produced approval under the S5 balance. ## Transferable points - A dog training/daycare field can be a "material change in the use of land" for outdoor recreation under GB7(1)(f)(iii), with a small gravel car park as an appropriate facility under (f)(iv) (DL ¶¶31, 35–37). - Inspectors will examine GB inappropriateness even where it is not a refusal reason (DL ¶27). - After GB7 is passed, the Inspector ran the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance (cf. S5(5)), and one P3 conflict was enough (DL ¶¶46–51). - Economic benefits of commercial development were given "substantial weight" under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶49). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** reuse of the chicken sheds is not inappropriate; GB raised by the Inspector though not a refusal reason (DL 27-29) - **GB7(1)(f)(iii): pass.** material change of use of the fields to dog training is outdoor recreation; negligible openness impact (DL 31-37) - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** small gravel car park is an appropriate facility; openness impact minimised; no significant conflict with GB2 purposes (DL 35-37) - **S5(1)(b): pass.** rural business where a location outside settlements is necessary (DL 47) - **E1: benefit (substantial weight).** Framework directs substantial weight to economic benefits of commercial development; jobs (DL 49) - **P3: fail (substantial weight).** barking noise at Cottage House 8 m from the boundary; ANC draft impulsivity/intermittency corrections; 1.8 m fence gives ~5-6 dB, not 10 dB (DL 16-26, 50) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Harefield Grove preserved (DL 43-44) ## Key facts - Up to 60 dogs on site, up to 30 outside at once; 7am-6pm weekdays and Saturday training - Cottage House (derelict, lawful residential, curtilage listed) is 8 m from the training field - Appellant's noise assessment used the South Holland SPD method; the objector's review applied ANC draft corrections of up to +12 dB - Acoustic fence introduced at appeal; whether it is itself inappropriate in the GB was left unresolved ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010520 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3e1c329e-206f-4ea4-b89c-103784ef7ae5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010520.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.