Land at Crossley Street, New Sharlston, WF4 1BQ

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• Whether or not the stables and the fencing are inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies (Appeal A)
• The effect of the stables and the fencing on the openness of the Green Belt (Appeal A)
• The effect of the stables and the fencing on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (Appeal A)
• If the stable and fencing are inappropriate, whether or not any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal in accordance with the Framework (Appeal A)
• Whether or not the use of the land for keeping horses and the stables are inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies (Appeal B)
• The effect of the use of the land for keeping horses and the stables on the openness of the Green Belt (Appeal B)
• The effect of the use of the land for keeping horses and the stables on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (Appeal B)
• If the use of the land for keeping horses and the stables are inappropriate, whether or not any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal in accordance with the Framework (Appeal B)

What decided it

The absence of very special circumstances to outweigh the substantial harm from inappropriate development (the stables and fencing) in the Green Belt, contrasted with the finding that the change of use to keeping horses preserved openness and accorded with the development plan.

The limited benefits of horse welfare and the appellant's livelihood did not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and to character and appearance, so very special circumstances were not established for the stables and fencing; the change of use to keeping horses, found not to harm openness, was allowed as it accorded with the development plan.