Sunderland stables and dog and cat home expansion rejected by government planning inspector

Plans were submitted last year for Stoneygate Stables, off Burdon Lane.

The site already includes kennels, a cattery, holiday chalets and stables and lies within an area of ‘rural fringe’ in the Tyne and Wear Green Belt.

But development chiefs at Sunderland City Council rejected the application for a new storage barn, claiming it was an “inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt” and would have a “detrimental impact on the openness, character and appearance of the countryside”.

The applicant later appealed the decision and an independent inspector was appointed to rule on the scheme.

This backed the council’s refusal decision and dismissed the appeal earlier this month.

In a decision report, the planning inspector noted the argument that the “storage of equipment for the livery yard would be a large part of the use of the building”, storing tools and other equipment needed to “deliver effective maintenance and management of the site as a whole”.

However, while noting the potential economic benefits, the planning inspector said this could only be given “minor weight”.

According to the findings, Green Belt policy is intended to prevent ‘urban sprawl’ by keeping land permanently open and that new buildings would be “inappropriate” unless they meet a number of exceptions.

Some exceptions include “provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport” and “limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use”.

In the appeal report’s conclusions, the planning inspector said the development did not meet the “very special circumstances” needed to outweigh harm to the Green Belt.

The planning inspector also noted that the building would cause “moderate” harm to the Green Belt in terms of openness and visual impact.

The decision report adds: “Having considered the matters raised in support of the proposal in terms of its contribution towards economic development, I conclude that they do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified, by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness.

“Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.”

The full appeal decision report can be found on the Planning Inspectorate’s website by searching reference: APP/J4525/W/22/3291483