- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C J Leigh
- Authority
- Dacorum (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6011489
- Application reference
- 26/00635/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of agricultural pasture to an outdoor wellbeing and therapeutic recreation use (daytime, by appointment), with one moveable consultation and office unit
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(f)(iv), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Dacorum Core Strategy 2013 CS5, CS8, CS12
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; highway safety; very special circumstances
Summary
A small plot of Green Belt pasture near Hemel Hempstead was to be used for appointment-only outdoor wellbeing sessions, with a prefabricated office unit for consultations. The inspector accepted the use of the land as outdoor recreation under GB7(1)(f)(iii) but found the building was not an "appropriate facility" under (f)(iv): nothing showed it was needed for the outdoor use. The scheme was inappropriate, with added harm to highway safety and character, and very special circumstances were not shown. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on this" (DL ¶1).
- GB7(1)(f)(iii) use of land: PASS. "I accept that use of the land for the purposes stated would be recreational, and this would be consistent with part iii of Policy GB7.1.f of the Framework" (DL ¶6).
- GB7(1)(f)(iv) building: FAIL. "I cannot see any reason why the provision of the proposed building is necessary to support those uses" (DL ¶6). "such activities do not depend on a Green Belt location and there is no robust evidence to explain how such consultations are connected to an outdoor recreation or sports use" (DL ¶6). "I consider the proposed building would not represent an appropriate facility for the use of the land for outdoor recreation" (DL ¶8).
- Inappropriate. "the development the subject of this appeal does not fall within a category set out in Policy GB7 of the Framework" (DL ¶9).
- Highway safety: HARM (local plan), significant weight. "With there being no robust evidence that adequate parking can be provided, I consider the proposals would be harmful to highway safety" (DL ¶11).
- Character: HARM, moderate weight (DL ¶12).
Planning balance
GB6(2) very special circumstances. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, significant weight to highway safety harm and moderate weight to character harm, against little or very little weight to the therapeutic benefit, the operating controls and reversibility. "I do not consider the matters raised in support of the proposal to clearly outweigh the harm identified" (DL ¶18).
What made the difference
The building, not the use. The outdoor activity was accepted as recreation. The office unit failed because consultations could happen anywhere and it filled much of a very small plot. Evidence tying a smaller shelter to the safe running of the outdoor sessions might have met (f)(iv).
Transferable points
- The appropriate-facilities limb, GB7(1)(f)(iv), is read as a need test: the building must be shown to be necessary to support the outdoor use (DL ¶6, ¶8).
- An activity that does not depend on a Green Belt location (one-to-one consultations) does not make its building a facility for outdoor recreation (DL ¶6).
- A building that takes up a large part of a small site undermines the claim that the land is used for outdoor recreation (DL ¶7).
- Reversibility and a temporary permission do not make a building appropriate or remove its effect on openness (DL ¶14).
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 | the use of the land for mindfulness, stretching, nature-based activity and therapeutic horticulture accepted as recreational and consistent with limb (iii) (DL 6) | |
| GB7(1)(f)(iv) | fail | no reason shown why the building is necessary to support the outdoor use; one-to-one consultations do not depend on a Green Belt location; the building takes a large part of a very small site, so it is not an "appropriate facility"; openness harmed (DL 6-9) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriate; openness harm from a large glazed office building on undeveloped land; VSC not shown (DL 8-9, 16-18) |
| TR6 | harm | significant | mapped: Framework highway policy not cited; no parking proposed or shown, visitors most likely to come by car, access and parking in the area very constrained; conflict with local CS8 and CS12 (DL 10-11) |
| DP3 | harm | moderate | mapped: Framework design policy not cited; home-office style building incongruous and cramped on a small rural plot (DL 12) |
Key facts
- Very small plot among buildings and small plots reached by a long shared access track (DL 4, 6)
- Proposal offered no client parking and one operator or volunteer vehicle; the inspector could not see how a condition would address parking that is neither proposed nor existing (DL 10)
- Controls on hours and visitor numbers, reversibility and a temporary permission each given very little weight (DL 13-14)
- Therapeutic benefit to clients given little weight (DL 15)
- Site visit made on 17 August 2026; parties given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL 1)
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.