Dear All

I received the email below from one of our members who lives in the Rother District of Sussex who is concerned about a change in planning regulations re: EQUESTRIAN PLANNING REGULATIONS, whilst our member is concerned about his own District I have discovered that all Councils can do this.

Below is the e-mail followed by pages 32-34 as mentioned, do we have a legal eagle who has time to look into this as it is very worrying, then get back to me?

Kindest regards

Phillip.

------

Dear Philip,

Rother District Council is currently consulting on a number of changes to its planning policies through a document called the DaSA. (I have. It’s a long detailed and complex document but on pages 32-34 they details the changes they wish tomake to how they judge planning applications for equestrian developments. You will see amongst other things that the Equestrian Developments Policy DCO2 shows policy option B is preferred. This preferred policy option is highly prescriptive and attempts to stifle a very important rural industry. It attempts to limit new equestrian developments to places near bridleways as this will be used as criteria when assessing planning applications for stables etc. The bridleway system in Rother is poor and horse riders have equal rights to all other modes of transport over the highway system. The proposed policy attempts to limit riding activity to areas with good bridleways which simply don’t exist in Rother.

Can I ask that you email this out to your email base as if we, as a group, don’t make comment and or object to this new very restrictive approach then the policy will be adopted?

Below is the detailed email from Rother District Council which shows the link to all the documents. I have attached a consultation form which can be emailed or posted toTown Hall,London Road,Bexhill-on-Sea,TN39 3JX

Equestrian developments

7.10. The Rother area continues to be a popular area for equestrian activities. Its

Countryside provides an attractive context for horse riders and there is a good network of bridleways throughout the District.

7.11. While there are a limited number of larger commercial centres in the District, it is small-scale facilities for individual and private pursuit that predominantly come forward as planning applications. Typically, proposals for stables will include a tack room as well as external hard-standings and manure bays, but may also include sand schools, fencing and jumps, as well as new accesses from the highway.

7.12. Core Strategy Policy RA2 is supportive of recreation and leisure facilities in the countryside where they are compatible with the rural character of the area.

7.13. A balance needs to be struck between meeting the desires of the equestrian community and at the same time safeguarding the intrinsic value and locally distinctive rural character and landscape features of the countryside. This is especially the case. In the High Weald AONB, the conservation and enhancement of which is afforded great weight.

7.14. The High Weald landscape is particularly vulnerable to development, including on the fringes of settlements. New buildings and hard surfaces – access roads or sand schools – are not always easily accommodated without some impact on the fields, small woodlands and farmstead meadows which make up the essential character of the AONB. Much of the rural area beyond the AONB is sensitive for other reasons; notably, the lower and open levels extending eastwards towards the Romney Marsh are ecologically sensitive and subject to national and international protection.

7.15. The keeping of horses is recognised as a countryside pursuit but associated development must be carefully controlled, primarily for landscape reasons. This is particularly the case to manage the increasing pressures from proposals for new isolated stables and, at the other extreme, from a cumulative impact of stabling and equestrian facilities in a concentrated area.

7.16. Other than the possibility of utilising former farm or other commercial buildings for new uses, there is limited scope within the countryside to accommodate further commercial equestrian enterprises. However, there is scope for equestrian development in the countryside that is limited in scale.

7.17. Ideally, new development should be sited close to existing built development, close to the bridleway system and should preferably utilise mobile field shelters, although this is not always practicable. Where applications come forward in more remote locations and permanent buildings are required, new development will be expected to meet a number of criteria aimed at protecting the character of the countryside and the amenities of both local residents and users of the countryside. Particular control is necessary over the location of any new development and over the size, siting and design of all new buildings and associated facilities. Floodlighting is not appropriate in the countryside, neither are extensive access roads, or excavations other than of a minor nature to enable the formation of a sand school (or manège).

7.18. In assessing applications adequate provision should also be made for the safety and comfort of horses in terms of land for grazing and exercising. Such provision will help to address the issue of the excessive sub-division of fields and over grazing/loss of soil structure. While there is not a common standard applicable throughout the plan area, depending on how the horses are kept and the nature of the land, a desirable guideline would suggest stocking at a density of one hectare per horse1.

Policy options:

First consideration is given to whether a specific equestrian policy is required. However, reliance on Core Strategy policy relating to leisure and recreational use in the countryside (Policy RA2) and the provisions of the NPPF is not regarded as a reasonable option, given the number of equestrian developments coming forward in the District, its substantial High Weald AONB coverage and the useful role of the saved 2006 Rother District Local Plan equestrian Policy CF5 – which will be superseded when this new Plan is adopted. Hence, two options have been considered and subject to

Sustainability Appraisal:

Option A: A positively promotional approach to equestrian development, encouraging both recreational and commercial proposals for the economic and leisure benefits, still with general safeguards.

Option B: A potentially more restrictive policy with more focused criteria to safeguard against the potential harm to the intrinsic character of the countryside and particularly the High Weald AONB. The SA/SEA of these options shows that Option B is largely justified in terms of being more sensitive to important environmental considerations, notably in terms of conserving High Weald AONB countryside character. However, Option A shows that there may be scope to mitigate the sometimes uncertain negative impacts of different types of proposals to ensure that they are not unnecessarily prevented. Hence, a more detailed policy that addresses the range of equestrian developments and associated considerations, against a clear backcloth of the weight to be attached to ensuring that they are sensitive to their context to be acceptable, is favoured.

The proposed policy wording, which consolidates the earlier and quite effective, ‘saved’ 2006 Local Plan Policy CF5, is set out below.

Policy DCO2: Equestrian Developments

Proposals for equestrian developments should, individually and cumulatively, safeguard the intrinsic and locally distinctive character and amenities of the countryside, with particular regard to the conservation of the High Weald AONB. In addition, proposals should accord with the following criteria, as applicable:

(i) The siting, scale and design, including materials and boundary treatment, of any new buildings or facilities should be appropriate to their rural setting;

(ii) Proposals should not be sited in prominent or isolated locations;

(iii) All proposals and especially sand schools and commercial riding schools, livery stables and related facilities, should be satisfactorily integrated with existing buildings;

(iv) any associated floodlighting, earthworks, new access routes or ancillary structures, including storage facilities, manure bays hard-standings, fencing and jumps, should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding countryside and local residential amenities; and

(v) Adequate provision should be made for the safety and comfort of horses in terms of the land for grazing and exercising, notably in the consideration of stabling proposals; commercial riding schools, livery stables and other commercial facilities should have satisfactory access to the public bridleway network without the use of unsuitable roads and in all cases not adversely impact on road safety. In some circumstances, conditions (such as the removal of permitted development rights for fencing and external storage) may be applied where it is considered that there is the need to control potential adverse landscape impacts which can arise from the poor management of sites. Permission may also be subject to the removal of excessive or inappropriate fencing which has already taken place.

QUESTION 7: Do you agree with the policy approach to equestrian developments and the proposed policy wording?