Equestrian stables and menage at Land At Church Wood, Three Houses Lane, Codicote

What was proposed

The application proposed equestrian use, ten stables, a covered riding area and an access track.

“Change of use of land to equestrian and erection of stables and covered manége.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is open countryside and Green Belt land beside woodland protected by a provisional tree protection order and designated as a Local Wildlife Site.

“The application site is irregular in shape and comprises approximately 1.55 hectares in overall area and is located on the south side of Three Houses Lane. The site is within the open countryside and Green Belt. The site includes agricultural land. A vehicular access road off Church Lane serves the site (and the adjacent barns) having recently being upgraded and widened.”

“Crouchgreen Wood and Church Wood extend to the north east and west of the application site owned by the applicant. The trees within the woods are protected by a provisional Tree Protection Order (TPO 00221/2025). The woodlands are designated as part of a Local Wildlife site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

Nearby land had several earlier permissions, while a later storage and distribution proposal was refused and was subject to a pending appeal.

“24/02343/FP: Change of use of existing site from agricultural to use Class B8 (Storage and Distribution). Extensions and alterations to existing barns; erection of detached temporary structure of three years and supporting substation and concrete base. Installation of hardstanding for outside storage and parking and installation of electric front entrance gates. Drainage pond and associated outfall pipe, alterations to surface access track (Development has commenced).”

“An appeal has been lodged and a decision from the Planning Inspectorate is pending.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the development inappropriate in the Green Belt, harmful to openness and rural character, unsustainable, and unsupported by a flood risk assessment.

“The development is considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been advanced in support of the application and none are apparent in this case. Paragraph 142 of the NPPF says that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The harm to the Green Belt must therefore carry substantial weight as stipulated by NPPF paragraph 153.”

“There is also no flood risk assessment which is particularly important given the size of the building and any associated surface water run-off. The development is also in an unsustainable location and fails to achieve the environmental objective of sustainable development as required by the Framework. Collectively these environmental harms carry significant weight.”

Officer report

What the speakers said

The objector supported refusal over woodland, tree, amenity and Green Belt concerns, while the agent sought deferral for amendments and further drainage work.

The committee vote

A motion to refuse permission was proposed, seconded and approved by the committee.

“Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to refuse permission and this was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.”

“Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission was refused because the proposal harmed the Green Belt and rural character and lacked satisfactory flood risk and drainage information.

“The application site is within an area designated in the North Hertfordshire Local Plan as Green Belt, within which there is a presumption against inappropriate development, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. In the view of the Local Planning Authority, the development does not fully comply with the exemption criteria set out under paragraphs 154 and 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“In the absence of a satisfactory flood risk assessment and site drainage strategy the development may give rise to surface water flooding which would be harmful to public health and amenity. The development would not be in accordance with the guidance in the NPPF and Planning Policy Practice guidance , or the North Herts Local Plan Policy NE8: Sustainable drainage systems (Reducing Flood Risk).”

Officer report