NFNPA 391/11 Annex 2

GUIDELINES FOR HORSE-RELATED DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (SPD)

STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION – SEPTEMBER 2011

Before a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) can be formally adopted, Regulation 17(1)(b) of the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 requires the National Park Authority to prepare a statement setting out who was consulted in connection with the preparation of the SPD; how they were consulted; a summary of the main issues raised in these consultations; and how these issues have been addressed in the Supplementary Planning Document. This ‘Statement of Consultation’ fulfils these regulatory requirements.

Details of the consultation to inform preparation of the draft SPD

The preparation of the draft Guidelines for Horse-Related Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was been informed by consultation linked to the adoption of the National Park Authority’s Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted December 2010), and the work of the independent New Forest Equine Forum.

During the 12 week public consultation on the National Park Authority’s consultation draft National Park Plan between August and November 2008, representations were received from over 7,500 individuals (including 7,000 names on a petition) on the proposed planning policies relating to recreational horse keeping and associated development. This significant volume of responses included:

. The call for the policies on recreational horse keeping to have due regard to the second statutory Park purposes and the related socio-economic duty; . General support for the aims of reducing the visual and environmental impacts on the New Forest’s landscape; and . A view that the level of clarity and detail required would be better provided in the form of a Supplementary Planning Document, as has been prepared by a number of other local planning authorities.

Following consideration of the issues raised in these consultation responses, the Authority appointed external consultants to facilitate two workshops focusing on recreational horse keeping in April 2009. The workshops were attended by individuals from over 20 organisations including the British Horse Society, the New Forest Equestrian Association, the Verderers of the New Forest, the New Forest Association, the New Forest Commoners Defence Association, the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, and Natural England. The list of attendees at these workshops and the main issues discussed can be found on the Authority’s website at: http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/about-us/our-work/national-park-management-plan/working-groups

The points raised at the two workshop sessions included:

. The need for a strategy which encourages responsible horse ownership, prepared in conjunction with local equine interests; . The need for short, easy to understand guidance that positively supports good practice. There was again support for preparing supplementary planning guidance to provide additional detail; and . Topics discussed for inclusions within any good practice guidance included boundary features, shelters, materials, and landscape impacts.

Following the workshops and further work, the Authority’s Submission draft Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD was published in February 2010 for a further statutory 6 week period of public consultation. During this consultation a total of 13 representations were received relating to the draft planning policies on recreational horse keeping and related development. Following independent examination in autumn 2010, the National Park Authority formally adopted the Core Strategy in December 2010. The Authority’s website (address below) includes:

. the Regulation 30(1)(d) Consultation Statement (February 2010) – outlining who was engaged in the preparatory work for the Submission draft Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD (February 2010); a summary of the main points raised; and how they were addressed; and . the Regulation 30(1)(e) Consultation Statement (May 2010) – outlining who was consulted on the Submission draft Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD (February 2010); a summary of the main points raised, and how they were addressed.

http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/core-strategy

With this statutory framework in place, work has continued with the New Forest Equine Forum (see below) on the development of the more detailed guidelines for horse-related development.

The role of the New Forest Equine Forum

The independent New Forest Equine Forum was established in the summer of 2009 following the workshops held as part of the review of the representations received on the consultation draft National Park Plan (see above). The membership of the Equine Forum is drawn from a range of individuals and bodies from across the New Forest including commoners, equine businesses, local residents, parish councils and nature conservation groups. Further details, including meeting minutes, can be viewed on the Forum’s website.

http://www.nfed.co.uk/nfef.htm

Since its establishment, the Equine Forum has been working with the National Park Authority and following input from the range of expertise available to the Forum, the draft 2 guidelines for horse-related development were agreed by the Forum for the purposes of public consultation in March 2011.

Formal public consultation on the draft Supplementary Planning Document

At the June 20011 National Park Authority meeting, Authority members approve the draft Guidelines for the purposes of a statutory period of public consultation. The six week public consultation period ran from 29 June to 10 August 2011 and in line with the minimum requirements set out in the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, the Authority publicised the public consultation though the following methods.

. Copies of the consultation document, the Consultation Statement, and the notice of SPD Matters were sent directly to over 80 statutory and general consultees, including all local authorities, town and parish councils within and adjacent to the National Park. . The document was also made available for inspection at the Authority’s office, and was available to view and download from the Authority’s website throughout the consultation period (alongside the SPD Matters and the Consultation Statement). . Public notices advertising the SPD Matters, the 6 week public consultation period, and where the document could be inspected were published in the Lymington Times; the Romsey Advertiser and the Forest Journal on 30 June, 1 July and 2 July respectively. . The Authority’s press release, issued at the start of the consultation period, resulted in articles in the Bournemouth Daily Echo, the Salisbury Journal, the Southern Daily Echo, the Lymington Times and the Country Land & Business Association website. A further press release was issued a week before the end of the consultation (03/08/11) reminding people that there was still time to comment.

In accordance with the relevant planning regulations and the Authority’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (2007), the Authority consulted the following bodies on the consultation draft Guidelines for Horse-Related Development SPD.

Parish Councils (including adjacent parishes) Alderbury Parish Council Cranborne & Edmondsham Parish Alderholt Parish Council Council Ashurst & Colbury Parish Council Denny Lodge Parish Council Beaulieu Parish Council Downton Parish Council Boldre Parish Council East Boldre Parish Council Bramshaw Parish Council Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Parish Bransgore Parish Council Council Breamore Parish Council Exbury & Lepe Parish Council Brockenhurst Parish Council Fawley Parish Council Burley Parish Council Fordingbridge Parish Council Burton Parish Council Godshill Parish Council Coombe Bissett & Homington Parish Hale Parish Council Council Hordle Parish Council Copythorne Parish Council Hurn Parish Council Hyde Parish Council

Hythe & Dibden Parish Council Romsey Extra Parish Council Landford Parish Council Sherfield English Parish Council Lymington & Pennington Town Council Sixpenny Handley with Pentridge Parish Lyndhurst Parish Council Council Marchwood Parish Council Sopley Parish Council Melchet Park & Plaitford Parish Council St Leonards & St Ives Parish Council Milford-On-Sea Parish Council Stratford Tony Parish Council Minstead Parish Council Sway Parish Council Netley Marsh Parish Council Totton & Eling Town Council New Milton Town Council Verwood Parish Council Nursling & Rownhams Parish Council Wellow Parish Council Odstock Parish Council West Dean Parish Council Redlynch Parish Council Whiteparish Parish Council Ringwood Town Council Woodgreen Parish Council

Local Authorities (including adjacent authorities) Hampshire County Council Dorset County Council Wiltshire Council Southampton City Council New Forest District Council East Dorset District Council Test Valley Borough Council Christchurch Borough Council

Statutory Consultation Bodies English Heritage Environment Agency SEEDA Natural England South West RDA National Grid

General Consultation Bodies Age Concern Hants Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire Association of Hants & Isle of Wight Local Downs AONB Authorities Crown Estate Atlantic Housing Association Defence Estates Bluestar DEFRA Bournemouth International Airport English National Park Authorities Bransgore Residents Association Association British Gas Exbury Estate British Horse Society Exbury Gardens Cadland Estate Exxon Chemical Ltd Calshot Activities Centre Fordingbridge Society Camping & Caravanning Club Forest Holidays Caravan Club Forestry Commission CBI South East Government Office for the South West Changing Lives Partnership Gypsy & Traveller Unit Churches Together in Ringwood & Hants Association of Parish and Town District Councils Civil Aviation Authority Hants Constabulary Commoners Defence Association Hants Cycling Community First new Forest Hants Federation of Residents CPRE Wiltshire Association CPRE Hampshire Hampshire Gardens Trust Hampshire Playing Fields Association 4

Hampshire Strategic Partnership New Forest Camping & Caravanning Hampshire Young Farmers Club Association Hamptworth Estate New Forest Consultative Panel Hants and Isle of Wight Strategic Health New Forest Equestrian Association Authority New Forest Pony Breeding & Cattle Home Builders Federation Society Housing Corporation New Forest Pony Publicity Group Hyde Housing Association New Forest Young Persons Forum Lepe Country Park Planning Inspectorate Lymington & District Chamber of Pylewell Estate Commerce Ringwood Chamber of Trade Lymington Society Sandy Balls Estate Lyndhurst Residents Association Setley Ridge Vineyard McCarthy & Stone Development Ltd Solent Forum Meyrick Estate Somerley Estate National Farmers Union South East Protected Landscapes New Forest Association Southampton Airport New Forest & Hampshire County Show Southern Tourist Board New Forest Association of Local Councils Verderers of the New Forest New Forest Bird Group

Consultation Responses

During the six week public consultation period, the Authority receives responses from 48 organisations and individuals within the National Park, making a total of nearly one hundred individual consultation comments. Nearly two thirds of the respondents were individuals living within the Park, with other respondents including 9 of the local parish councils within the National Park, the New Forest Association, the Commoners Defence Association, and the New Forest Equestrian Association.

As required by the Planning Regulations, the tables on the following pages summarise the main issues raised in the individual responses and also outline how the issued raised have been addressed within the Supplementary Planning Document. Some of the main issues raised by the 48 respondents included:

. Reference should be made to protecting existing rights of way; . The need for the Guidelines to make specific reference to the impacts on commoner’s back up grazing land from horse-related development; . The Authority needs to bring recreational horse keeping under planning control and if necessary take enforcement action; . A concern that the stated stocking density would be the main criterion for assessing whether a change of use from agriculture to horse keeping had occurred; . The use of a technical term (Article 4 Directions) should be explained; . Reference to the requirements for planning permission being a ‘notoriously grey area’ is incorrect; and . The section on manages should be amended to allow greater flexibility in their use.

Officer comment/proposed amendment Respondent Respondent comment Support page/chap/ Comments

Ref No. ref no. comment para no

object 1 NPA Access 101 Support Para. 6.6 The reference to not siting muck-heaps as to cause a nuisance Noted Officer to users of rights of way is appreciated. 1 NPA Access 102 Comment Section 6 The sub-division of paddocks is an issue for rights of way. It Additional sentence added at end of Officer would be helpful if the guidance could indicate that new para. 6.13 "In all cases, care must be fencing across rights of way should be kept to a minimum and taken to ensure that any new that legally permission for any new fence across a right of way fencing does not encroach on a would be required from the highway authority who would public right of way." require a suitable gate.

1 NPA Access 103 Comment Para. 6.10 The rule about fences over 1 metre in height next to highways Clarification added at paragraph Officer also applies to rights of way (which are minor highways). It 6.10 as suggested. would be helpful if the SPD could include this information. 1 NPA Access 104 Comment General A point which is already covered by law so perhaps not Noted but not considered necessary Officer comment appropriate for the SPD, but it may be worth stating that no to repeat this point of law within structures such as stables, maneges etc should be sited so as to the guidelines. obstruct a public highway.

2 Hyde Parish 111 Comment General Hyde Parish councillors thought it was a very good document. Noted Council comment

2 Hyde Parish 112 Comment Para. 4.11 The inclusion of a maximum length of time for which the There is no conclusive test to judge Council shelter can stay in one place would help prevent abuse of this the length of time after which a concession. mobile shelter automatically requires planning permission - each case has to be assessed on its individual merits as a matter of 'fact and degree'. The effect of stating a maximum length of time would , in effect, grant planning permission for structures remaining on the land for a time less than the stated period, which may not always be appropriate or compliant with planning law.

2 Hyde Parish 113 Comment Para. 6.9 The point needs to be made that it is the responsibility of land Noted - point 6.9 does Council owners adjacent to common land to fence to keep stock out. acknowledges that most land owners will need to erect boundary fencing/enclosures.

3 Local 121 Support Para. 3.1 Action must be taken to stop the parking of cars and horse Noted - Policy D21 in the Core Resident boxes on designated verges. Action must be taken to stop Strategy already refers to riding further erosion of the fragile Crown and access land through pressures on the Open Forest, so horse riding. Photos attached with response show erosion not considered necessary to caused by horse riding on Ibsley Common. duplicate in the SPD.

3 Local 122 Support & Para. 4.5 The delay of many years by NFDC and the NPA in enforcing Changes are proposed to Resident Comment and 4.6 planning conditions on the keeping of horses on agricultural paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 to reflect land is regrettable. The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 sets these comments and those made by out the permitted use of agricultural land which includes other respondents as listed below. grazing land - i.e. animals live off the available grazing with occasional supplementary feed. If fields are divided into paddocks, supplementary feed supplied for six months of the year, this is a change of use and planning permission is required. 3 Local 123 Support & Para. 6.4 We must preserve our remaining wildflower meadows from Noted Resident Comment overgrazing by horses. Natural England must catalogue the meadows and designated SSSIs. All trees in paddocks must be protected from ring barking by horses. Two examples of ring barking on oak trees on agricultural land in the New Forest are shown in the accompanying photos.

3 Local 124 Support & Para. 6.6 Regular water quality tests must be carried out for ditches and Noted Resident Comment streams. Agree about the siting of muck heaps. Overgrazed land may also be polluted and may not be able to be used for providing food in times of need. 3 Local 125 Support & Policy Many commoner's holdings have been lost in recent years for Noted - policy DP21 now forms part Resident Comment DP21 use of keeping horses. Some Crown and access land may be of the adopted Core Strategy which under grazed. Much back up grazing land in the Avon Valley has seeks to prevent the loss of back-up been lost due to mining but cattle are not allowed to graze by grazing land. Further commentary lakes used for water storage. proposed at paragraphs 3.3 and 4.7

4 Hordle 131 Support General Support the document. No comments to make. Noted Parish Comment Council

5 Melchet 141 Comment General The Parish Council has considered this document and wishes to Noted Park & Comment observe that it now seems quite sensible. Plaitford Parish Council

6 Hale Parish 151 Support General The guidelines appear to be good practice. Noted Council Comment

7 Local 161 Object General The proposed SPD is misconceived, misleading and miss-states The draft guidelines supplement the Resident Comment legal principles. It would be unlawful for a planning committee development management policies to adopt the guidelines when considering planning applications which have been the subject of an for change of use from agriculture to recreational horse independent examination and now keeping. form part of the adopted Core Strategy. The proposed changes to paragraphs. 4.5 and 4.6 will ensure that the draft SPD is consistent with the advice set out at paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy.

7 Local 162 Comment General There is an urgent need to bring recreational horse keeping Noted - the guidelines are intended Resident Comment under planning control. If the NPA had any applications for a to help inform all related planning change of use there might be some point in setting out decisions, which include both guidelines, but there are no such applications. The same applies proposed and existing horse-related if enforcement action were in contemplation, but there is no developments. reference to that either.

7 Local 163 Comment General The NPA will presumably grant permission subject to three Further commentary provided at Resident Comment points, none of which are explored in the guidelines. One of the paragraphs 3.3 and 4.7 most important points is the loss of back up grazing land which is a major concern to commoners. The only way forward is for the NPA to commence enforcement proceedings in appropriate cases. If that results in an application for planning permission then the matter can be decided on a proper basis having regard to all relevant factors and appropriate conditions imposed.

7 Local 164 Comment General Any member of the NPA Planning Committee who is involved in Noted Resident Comment the grazing of horses which may or may not be agricultural should declare an interest. 7 Local 165 Object Para. 1.1 Reference is made to the "special requirements of being in a The "special requirements" of being Resident National Park." In deciding whether recreational horse keeping in a National Park are referred to is agriculture or not, there are no special requirements of being throughout the document, notably in a National Park - planning law is the same. at paragraphs 1.2, 2.1, 3.2, 5.2 and 6.2. This reference reflects the fact that National Parks have been afforded the highest status of protection by government (PPS7). Although this does not affect the distinction between horse keeping and agriculture, it emphasises the need to reduce landscape impacts.

7 Local 166 Object Para. 1.1 Reference is made to the "guidelines seeking to achieve a Proposed amendment to paragraph Resident balance." However, issues such as loss of back up grazing land, 2.1 now refers to commoning with ecological effects caused by soil degradation, additional traffic further commentary at paragraphs into fields which have been sub-divided, additional buildings on 3.3 and 4.7. each small plot, and the effect on commoning of vastly inflated prices for small areas of land are totally ignored.

7 Local 167 Object Para. 3.2 The guidelines refer to "the few cases where recreational horse The quote on the NFEF website has Resident keeping is done badly." In reality there are substantial and been taken from the draft significant areas where recreational horse keeping is done guidelines, not vice-versa. badly. The passage above is a direct quote from the New Forest Equine Forum website which shows the level of objectivity in the guidelines.

7 Local 168 Object Para. 4.5 The paragraph is misleading. The introduction of the issue of Noted but do not agree that Resident 'commercial activity' is a red herring. If the authorised use of statement is misleading. land is agricultural any use other than agricultural use will require planning permission whether it be commercial or not. 7 Local 169 Object Para. 4.5 The guidelines suggest a stocking density of no more than 1 This is consistent with the advice set Resident horse per 0.5ha of land. It is inconceivable that the use of any out at paragraph 8.42 of the Core more land in the National Park for recreational horse keeping Strategy. would not amount to a loss of back up grazing land. 7 Local 170 Object Para. 4.5 The paragraph refers to a 'general rule' based on stocking This is consistent with the advice set Resident density. This can be no more than a rule of thumb and may be a out at paragraph 8.42 of the Core factor in deciding whether there has been a change of use. Strategy which refers to the stocking density being a "guideline".

7 Local 171 Object Para. 4.5 Is recreational horse keeping 'agriculture'? This question is It is proposed to amend this Resident described in the guidelines as a 'notoriously grey area' but it is wording to reflect that used at nothing of the sort. There are up to date High Court decisions paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy. (which are binding on the NPA) giving clear guidance on this topic. It is clear that unless the primary purpose is the use of land for grazing then the keeping of horses on agricultural land requires planning permission. This is reflected in guidance from the British Horse Society and 'the Sykes test'.

7 Local 172 Object Para. 4.5 The NPA has received no applications to change the use of any The Authority's planning team are Resident land from agriculture to recreational horse keeping in the last frequently called upon to give five year. In the same period there have been no enforcement advice as to the need for planning proceedings against those keeping horses on land as they claim permission for horse-related they are using the land for grazing and have not changed the development and the draft SPD will use from agriculture. The result of the NPA's (and NFDC before help support this process. it) failure to deal with the issue is plain for all to see.

7 Local 173 Object Para. 4.8 This paragraph suggests that if a field has the appearance of an It is proposed to amend this Resident agricultural field grazed by horses, then there has been no wording to reflect that used at change of use and planning permission is not required. This is paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy. total and utter nonsense and is totally unsupported by the law.

7 Local 174 Object Para. 4.8 The law in respect of the planning aspects of recreational horse The law is not that simple and the Resident keeping is simple. Most horse keeping is carried out on land for subject continues to generate which the authorised use of agriculture. To change the use of considerable confusion. land from agriculture is development and requires planning permission. The Town & Country Planning Act defines 'agriculture' as 'the use of land for grazing land'. The guidelines should be focus on whether recreational horse keeping falls within that definition of agriculture.

7 Local 175 Object Para. 4.10 Where land attached to a residential property amounts to more Noted but not agreed. Resident than an acre or two, its use for recreational horse keeping will require planning permission.

8 Landford 181 Comment Para. 4.11 Paragraph 4.11 states that, "…planning permission will be There is no conclusive test to judge Parish required if the shelter…remains in the same location for any the length of time after which a Council length of time." The shelter must remain in the same location mobile shelter automatically for some length of time and therefore would always need requires planning permission - each planning permission. This colloquial expression should be case has to be assessed on its replaced by something more precise. individual merits as a matter of 'fact and degree'. The effect of stating a maximum length of time would , in effect, grant planning permission for structures remaining on the land for a time less than the stated period, which may not always be appropriate or compliant with planning law.

9 New Milton 191 Object Para. 4.11 The paragraph states that consent will be required if the placing There is no conclusive test to judge Town of a mobile field shelter changes the use of the land it is sited the length of time after which a Council on. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic for a mobile shelter and mobile shelter automatically should only require permission if the shelter takes on a degree requires planning permission - each of permanence. It is also suggested that 'permanence' is case has to be assessed on its defined in the document for clarity. individual merits as a matter of 'fact and degree'. The effect of stating a maximum length of time would , in effect, grant planning permission for structures remaining on the land for a time less than the stated period, which may not always be appropriate or compliant with planning law.

9 New Milton 192 Support Para. 5.11 The Town Council commends the NPA in resisting increased Noted Town access points and roadways due to their urbanising effect. Council 9 New Milton 193 Comment General The layout of the document would benefit from being adjusted There is a need to refer to the Town Comment so that all aspects of grazing for example are under the relevant different grazing regimes at various Council title. Currently the different aspects are across the document points in the guidelines. despite the existing titles, which makes it less user friendly.

10 Local 201 Support Para. 4.5 Generally a very sensible, reasonable and well thought out Resident policy. The figure of 0.5 ha per horse also seems sensible - it strikes a good balance in a sensitive and crowded area. Noted

11 New Forest 210 Comment General In the recent Census of Commoners, one of the most frequently Further commentary provided at Commoners Comment quoted problems was availability of affordable back up grazing paragraph 3.3 and 4.7. Defence land. The shortage arises to a large extent from the change Association from agricultural use of land to the more intensive recreational horse keeping which commands significantly higher rental or sales values. The CDA welcomed the inclusion in the Core Strategy of policy DP21 which affords protection to back up grazing land, but the CDA is firmly of the view that the SPD significantly weakens the strength of this safeguard.

11 New Forest 211 Comment Para. 2.1 The draft SPD states that the equestrian use of land "…brings Paragraph 2.1 amended in Commoners with it some more obvious landscape impacts." The impacts go recognition of potential impacts on Defence far beyond simply landscape and this paragraph should commoning. Association recognise at a minimum the economic and cultural heritage impacts on commoning and the knock on effects on conservation. 11 New Forest 212 Object Para. 4.5 The draft SPD states that determining whether there has been a The proposed changes to paragraph Commoners change of use is "a notoriously grey area in planning law" and 4.5 will ensure that the draft SPD is Defence "it is very difficult to make hard and fast rules." These consistent with the advice set out at Association statements are a clear invitation to ignore or break the law and paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy. an indication that the NPA does not intend to take any action where recreational horse keeping takes place without planning permission. The CDA's view is that there has been widespread change of use from agriculture to recreational horse keeping without permission and the NPA has taken no action.

11 New Forest 213 Object Para. 4.6 Paragraph 4.6 states that "…if land is subdivided into paddocks The proposed changes to paragraph Commoners and shelters provided there may be a material change of use…" 4.6 will ensure that the draft SPD is Defence This dilutes and weakens rather than strengthening and consistent with the advice set out at Association underpinning the intention of DP21. The CDA suggest it should paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy. read, "...provided it is likely that a change of use will occur and therefore planning permission will be required."

11 New Forest 214 Object Para. 4.12 Paragraph 4.12 states that "...if you are in doubt about the The Authority can not compel but Commoners need for planning permission…" The guidance should state very only encourage people to seek Defence firmly that anyone planning horse-related development must relevant advice. It is hoped that the Association seek the advice of the NPA Planning Department. Failure to guidelines will help to make this seek or follow such advice if planning permission is needed but advice more widely available. not sought or granted should result in enforcement action from the NPA.

12 Local 220 Object Para. 5.5 The paragraph dealing with stable size is misleading. Planners Additional commentary proposed at Resident are bound to adopt the dimensions as a benchmark which in paragraph 5.6 advising that these unlikely to be exceeded and if the wording remains unchanged dimensions will be kept under this will lead to welfare issues. The BHS does not 'recommend' review in light of any new guidance a 'rule of thumb' as set out in the consultation document. from the BHS. Instead the BHS guidelines provide expressly "According to the size of the horse the British Horse Society recommends and minimum stables size of 12 ft x 12 ft for horses, and preferably 12ft x 14ft for larger individuals." To restrict stable sizes to those indicated will force horse owners to keep animals in conditions which may be cruel and unhealthy. Paragraph 5.5 should be amended to read "The BHS recommends a minimum stable size of 12 x 12ft for horses and preferably 12 x 14ft for larger individuals. For ponies the recommended minimum dimensions should be 10ft x 10ft and 10ft x 12ft for larger ponies. The guidelines should make it plain that planning officers must not restrict box sizes to the minimum dimensions where larger animals are to be housed.

13 Burley 230 Support General Burley Parish Council entirely welcome and support the Noted Parish Comment proposed new guidelines. Council 13 Burley 231 Comment General The Forest would benefit considerably if the use of wooden Parish Comment post and rail could be encouraged for permanent use (if Council hedging is not feasible). The use of post and wire/barbed wire should be discouraged for fencing purposes. Noted

14 - 35 Local 240 Comment General Witnessed first hand what happens if agricultural land used for Noted - Policy D21 in the Core Residents Comment farming is turned into land use for recreational horse keeping. Strategy already refers to riding Verges are ploughed up by parked cars causing destruction to pressures on the Open Forest, so SSSIs, horse owners obstruct the roads at gateways and the not considered necessary to volume of horses using the Common destroy its fabric and duplicate in the SPD. disturb its rare wildlife.

14 - 35 As above 241 Object Paragraph Allowing use of land for recreational horse keeping contradicts The proposed changes to paragraph 4.5 Policy DP21 in the Core Strategy which states that planning 4.5 will ensure that the draft SPD is permission will only be granted if horse keeping does not have consistent with the advice set out at an adverse impact on the landscape or nature conservation paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy. interests; harmfully increase riding pressures; or result in the loss of back up land. Rather than clarify what is and is not acceptable, the Guidelines merely emphasise that this is a grey area - giving scope for people to flout planning laws.

14 - 35 As above 242 Comment General We must protect this precious environment we live in and Comment protect the fabric of the Forest for future generations as well as the precious wildlife species which share it with us. Noted 14 - 35 As above 243 Comment General The NPA should further review these Guidelines to give clear Comment and concise guidance as to what is and is not acceptable. If these Guidelines are breached then enforcement action should be taken to stop that breach. Noted

36 Local 250 Comment General The draft Guidelines are thorough and couched in a firm but Resident Comment polite tone. Noted

36 Local 251 Comment Para. 4.2 There should be some sort of reassurance that if people contact The Authority can not compel but Resident the planning department and supply their personal details, this only encourage people to seek will not lead to some sort of witch hunt. There should also be relevant advice. It is hoped that the some emphasis on contacting the planning department for guidelines will help to make this further explanation if readers are in any doubt about advice more widely available. interpreting the Guidelines. While I can understand why the guidelines do not deal with retrospective planning permission and enforcement, the NPA and the Equine Forum could be criticised for not mentioning them at all.

36 Local 252 Comment Para. 4.5 There will be those who still do not understand the distinction The proposed changes to Resident between 'agricultural use' and 'recreational horse-keeping' (the paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 will ensure keeping of horses) and 'commercial use'. Paragraph 4.5 could that the draft SPD is consistent with be amended as set out below to clarify this. the advice set out at paragraph 8.42 Para. 4.5: "However recreational horse-keeping (or the keeping of the Core Strategy. of horses for recreational purposes) is not in itself regarded as an agricultural activity. Therefore if the pasture is grazed as a livery enterprise (or it is planned to develop such an enterprise), or other activities such as schooling, take place on the land, then this is regarded as a commercial use, and planning permission for change of land use would normally be required. Para. 4.6: "Determining whether or not there has been a change of use from 'agricultural' to 'commercial' use is a notoriously 'grey area' in planning law. It is very difficult to make 'hard and fast' rules as each case must be assessed on its own merit, having regard to the particular circumstances of the site and the nature of the use. However, as a general rule, and in addition to the considerations outlined below, a judgement can normally be made on the basis of the area of grazing land available per animal. As it is often assumed that commercial use will be more intensive, as a guideline, the 'keeping of horses' is generally regarded as taking place when there is less than 0.5ha of land per horse."

36 Local 253 Comment Para. 6.10 Reference to 'Article 4 Directions' should perhaps be Resident accompanied by an explanatory footnote because this is not a familiar term. A footnote is proposed for inclusion.

37 Bramshaw 260 Comment Para. 4.5 The Council broadly welcomes the draft guidance as a step in The draft guidelines supplement the Parish the right direction. However, the guidance in its current form development management policies Council will not rule out the sorts of problematic developments that which have been the subject of an have featured in the Council's discussions with the NPA. The independent examination and now specific issue here is that stocking density is proposed as a form part of the adopted Core criterion for deciding whether horse keeping requires planning Strategy. The proposed changes to permission. This means that a given case of horse keeping paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 will ensure would be immune from enforcement action providing its that the draft SPD is consistent with stocking density was below the threshold, regardless of how the advice set out at paragraph 8.42 badly the case infringed all the other guidelines and might of the Core Strategy. The stocking cause to the landscape and environment. The Council is seeking density is based on Defra guidance legal advice about the criteria to be used to determine whether and is included as a general planning permission is required and this advice will be shared 'guideline' within the SPD. with the NPA.

38 Godshill 270 Support General Godshill Parish Council is much happier with the revised policy Parish Comment and wishes to support the consultation document. Council Noted

39 Environment 280 Support Para. 6.6 The Environment Agency are pleased with the inclusion of the Agency wording in paragraph 6.6 relating to the siting of muckheaps away from watercourses. Noted

40 New Forest 290 Comment General In the recent Census of Commoners, one of the most frequently The proposed change to paragraph Association Comment quoted problems was availability of affordable back up grazing 2.1 addresses the potential impact land. The shortage arises to a large extent from the change on commoning. from agricultural use of land to the more intensive recreational horse keeping which commands significantly higher rental or sales values. The CDA welcomed the inclusion in the Core Strategy of policy DP21 which affords protection to back up grazing land, but the CDA is firmly of the view that the SPD significantly weakens the strength of this safeguard.

40 New Forest 291 Comment Para. 2.1 The draft SPD states that the equestrian use of land "…brings Paragraph 2.1 amended in Association with it some more obvious landscape impacts." The impacts go recognition of potential impacts on far beyond simply landscape and this paragraph should commoning. recognise at a minimum the economic and cultural heritage impacts on commoning and the knock on effects on conservation. 40 New Forest 292 Object Para. 4.5 The draft SPD states that determining whether there has been a The proposed changes to paragraph Association change of use is "a notoriously grey area in planning law" and 4.5 will ensure that the draft SPD is "it is very difficult to make hard and fast rules." These consistent with the advice set out at statements are a clear invitation to ignore or break the law and paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy. an indication that the NPA does not intend to take any action where recreational horse keeping takes place without planning permission. The NFA's view is that there has been widespread change of use from agriculture to recreational horse keeping without permission and the NPA has taken no action.

40 New Forest 293 Object Para. 4.6 Paragraph 4.6 states that "…if land is subdivided into paddocks The proposed changes to paragraph Association and shelters provided there may be a material change of use…" 4.6 will ensure that the draft SPD is This dilutes and weakens rather than strengthening and consistent with the advice set out at underpinning the intention of DP21. The NFA suggest it should paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy. read, "...provided it is likely that a change of use will occur and therefore planning permission will be required."

40 New Forest 294 Object Para. 4.12 Paragraph 4.12 states that "...if you are in doubt about the The Authority can not compel but Association need for planning permission…" The guidance should state very only encourage people to seek firmly that anyone planning horse-related development must relevant advice. It is hoped that the seek the advice of the NPA Planning Department. Failure to guidelines will help in making this seek or follow such advice if planning permission is needed but advice more widely available. not sought or granted should result in enforcement action from the NPA.

41 Hampshire 300 Support General Overall the Trust supports the guidelines as they will help clarify Noted & Isle of Comment the complex issues surrounding planning permissions for horse Wight related development. Wildlife Trust 41 Hampshire 301 Comment Section 6 Concerned at the use of 'Enclosure' which could be miss- Noted but no change considered & Isle of interpreted and has implications relating to land used (e.g. the necessary. Wight Enclosure Acts). Would recommend an alternative such as 'field Wildlife or stock boundaries' is used. Trust 41 Hampshire 302 Comment Para. 6.10 As this document is designed as guidance for members of the Agreed, proposed to add footnote & Isle of public, a technical term such as 'Article 4 Directions' should not Wight be used. This term should be explained in plain English or an Wildlife explanation given in a footnote. Trust

41 Hampshire 303 Comment Section The SPD should advise on whether maneges are suitable for use Conditions relating to maneges can & Isle of 6.14 by people other than the applicant. A manege may be suitable be reviewed but do not need to be Wight for a number of equestrians to use rather than just one. stipulated in the guidelines. Wildlife Trust 41 Hampshire 304 Comment General There is no reference in the draft policy to back up land for Further commentary provided at & Isle of Comment commoner grazing. We believe that an explanation of paragraphs 3.3 and 4.7 Wight commoner grazing and lay back land should be included in the Wildlife Introduction. Trust

42 Local 310 Object General The draft guidelines miss-represent the legal requirements for The draft guidelines supplement the Resident Comment planning permission for recreational horse keeping. The development management policies proposed criteria for determining whether a change of use has which have been the subject of an occurred provides a loophole that will allow harmful independent examination and now developments to continue without any prospect of form part of the adopted Core enforcement. The loophole arises from the suggestion that Strategy. The proposed changes to stocking density should be the main criterion for judging paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 will ensure whether planning permission is required. Aside from being that the draft SPD is consistent with wrong in a legal sense, the effect would be to allow bad the advice set out at paragraph 8.42 example of horse keeping to continue if the stocking density of the Core Strategy. The SPD does remains below 0.5 ha. not state that stocking density should be the 'main criterion' for judging whether planning permission is required. Stocking density is included as a general 'guideline' to be considered in addition to the other considerations listed.

42 Local 311 Object Para. 1.1 The stated purpose of the guidance in para. 1.1 conflicts with Noted but it is felt that the purpose Resident the later definition in Section 2, and is inconsistent with the role of the guidelines is adequately of supplementary planning guidance as set out in the relevant stated at paragraphs 1.1, 2.1 and planning regulations. The statement that horse riding in the 2.2. New Forest has a long history is beside the point - the proliferation of recreational horse-keeping by non-commoners is a relatively modern problem. The description of horse-riding as a "highly valued" activity is too sweeping. Information from the ONS suggests that no more than 1% of the population participates in horse keeping. The reference to "a balance that makes everyone comfortable" is inappropriate - it suggests the Guidelines are a compromise between the National Park purposes and the view of equine pressure groups. Para. 1.1 should be re-worded to read broadly as follows: "These guidelines are for people who keep horses at grass or manage land for equestrian pursuits within the National Park. The purpose of the guidelines is to (i) clarify the planning rules that apply to keeping horses and other equestrian developments; and (ii) give advice that will help horse keepers to avoid damaging the landscape of the Park." 42 Local 312 Object Para. 2.2 The document is trying to be two things - SPD and guidance on Noted - proposed amendments seek Resident best practice for horse keeping. It should only be the former to provide further clarification. and should only take into best practice in so far as it has planning implications. It is not clear how the guidelines will be taken into account in determining applications - will permission be granted where they are met and refused where they are not? Will compliance be imposed as a condition? Section 2 should be re-written to clarify the way in which the Guidelines will be used in determining applications.

42 Local 313 Object Para. 3.1 The first sentence states that horse riding brings great pleasure Noted but not agreed. Resident to 'many people' This term is far too vague and should be removed altogether. One of the reasons why the guidelines are needed is to clarify the requirements for planning permission and the conditions under which permission will be granted. This not mentioned in para. 3.1 which should be reworded to read broadly as follows: "The riding and keeping of recreational horses is a pleasurable pastime enjoyed by around 1% of the population. However, the NPA is obliged to ensure that the related development does not continue to have an adverse impact on the special qualities of the Park."

42 Local 314 Object Para. 3.2 This paragraph asserts that horse keeping is done badly in a Noted - policy DP21 now forms part Resident 'few cases'. What evidence does the NPA have to support this of the adopted Core Strategy which assertion? If there is no evidence the assertion should be seeks to prevent the loss of back-up removed. The paragraph implies that harmful impacts are grazing land. Further commentary limited to over grazing, poor fencing and inappropriate lighting. proposed at paragraphs 3.3 and 4.7 This is misleading and makes no mention of the loss of back-up grazing land even though this is a significant issue affecting the Forest. Para. 3.2 should be re-written to read broadly as follows: "When it is done badly horse keeping can damage the landscape and environment. This can include overgrazing and poaching of land; unsightly fencing, equipment and food stores; fatal damage to trees ring barked by horses; damage to verges from vehicles; loss of biodiversity; and harmful changes to the character of the landscape. Even where it is done well, there can be conflict with other planning objectives such as the need to preserve back up grazing for commoning. These guidelines seek to promote good practice and prevent sites getting to the point where harm might be caused to the environment."

42 Local 315 Object Section 4 This section miss-represents the legal requirements for The draft guidelines supplement the Resident planning permission and provides a major loophole that will development management policies hamper future enforcement action. The draft does not explain which have been the subject of an that the requirements for planning permission are dictated by independent examination and now law, not by NPA policy. The backlash generated by the original form part of the adopted Core draft NPA plan was caused in part by miss-understandings Strategy. The proposed changes to about the relative roles of national legislation and local policy. paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 will ensure Reference to the requirements for planning permission being a that the draft SPD is consistent with 'notoriously grey area' is factually incorrect and will only the advice set out at paragraph 8.42 encourage inappropriate developments. The law (as clarified by of the Core Strategy. the Sykes case) is clear about where planning permission is required. Stocking density is not the underlying factor to be taken into account in determining whether planning permission is required as highlighted by the Sykes case and many subsequent judgements by Planning Inspectors. No reference is made to Sykes even though this case provides the legal basis for determining where permission is needed. Section 4 should be rewritten to include reference to (i) the requirements for planning permission for keeping of horses are laid down in law (which the NPA is legally obliged to enforce); turning out horses to graze land does not require permission, however, where a horse is homed on the land permission will normally be required; if horses are on land as part of a commercial activity, such as livery, this will usually need permission; as a general rule if land is sub-divided into paddocks there may be a change of use; where fodder has to be brought onto the land that will normally be evidence that the use is not agricultural and that planning permission is needed.

42 Local 316 Object Para. 5.3 The recommendation re. planting of screening is too weak. Resident There is no point in planting the screening unless it is adequately protected and maintained. The section should be extended to include adequate guidelines for the protection, establishment and maintenance of screening. 42 Local 317 Object Para. 5.5 Some of the details given here are relevant to animal welfare Noted but not agreed. Resident concerns but not relevant to planning policy. This section should be removed and replaced with reference to BHS guidance. 42 Local 318 Object Para. 5.8 The use of the word 'preferably' is meaningless in this context. Noted but not agreed. Resident Are you saying it is up to the landowner to decide or not? The NPA should be insisting that a specific dark stain is used. This section should be revised to make it clear that planning permission will normally require conformance with the guidelines unless there are exceptional circumstances.

42 Local 319 Object Para. 5.9 The use of the term 'should be resisted' is ambiguous. By whom Noted but not agreed. Resident should it be resisted? Are you saying it is for the builder to decide, or are you saying that the NPA will not normally allow it? If concrete blocks are to be used, then the building should be clad with timber. This section should be revised to make it clear that planning permission will normally require conformance with the guidelines unless there are exceptional circumstances.

42 Local 320 Object Para. 5.10 The use of the term 'consideration should be given' is Noted but not agreed. Resident ambiguous. Are you happy for people to consider but then disregard the suggestions? Or do they really mean that grasscrete, or some other permeable material, should be used unless there is an exceptional justification for some other type of material? This section should be revised to make it clear that planning permission will normally require conformance with the guidelines unless there are exceptional circumstances.

42 Local 321 Object Para. 6.4 What is the term 'if necessary' supposed to mean? Under what Noted but not agreed. Resident circumstances would a pasture management plan be 'necessary'? The reference to trees is made in passing and underplays the serious nature of the problem. There are many mature native trees of significant landscape value which can be condemned to death within days if ring-barked by horses. There should be a separate section to emphasise the problem. The ground over the roots must also be protected from traffic, muck-heaps, alterations to ground water levels, salt licks etc.

42 Local 322 Object Para. 6.5 This is locking the door after the horse has bolted. The rotation Noted Resident and resting should be done to prevent overgrazing, not as an afterthought.

42 Local 323 Object Para. 6.11 Post and rail is not a common agricultural fencing style, and is Noted but not agreed - these are Resident not in keeping with the area. If horse keepers want to use post intended as guidelines rather than a and rail fencing they should be required to back it up with rigid set of rules. native hedging to soften the impacts. Where the document states that ornamental gates etc are 'to be avoided' what is this intended to mean? Are you saying that permission for horse- keeping will not be granted if such gates are proposed? More generally, the relationship between the guidelines in Section 6 and the need for planning permission is completely unclear.

43 Hampshire 330 Comment General This is a welcome document which recognises that whilst Noted County Comment horse-keeping can have positive benefits on land management, Council it can also have negative impacts if done badly. The document covers all of the issues pretty well, but there are a couple of things associated with horse-keeping which cause the County Council problems in trying to manage the rights of way network.

43 Hampshire 331 Comment Section There is quite a lot of discussion in the document about fencing Additional sentence added at end of County 6.8 and sub-division of fields, and these cause problems in relation para. 6.13 "In all cases, care must be Council to public rights of way. The County Council would like to see a taken to ensure that any new statement requiring fencing across Public Rights of Way to be fencing does not encroach on a kept to an absolute minimum, or better still a commitment that public right of way." such fencing would be actively discouraged. Such fencing would constitute an illegal obstruction to the Right of Way and any gate required would need to be authorised by HCC as the highway authority. Any fencing alongside a Public Right of Way should not encroach on the legal width of the path. Would also like to see a statement advising that no buildings, structures, maneges etc should be placed or near a Public Right of Way so as to obstruct the users of the path - this would be an offence under the Highways Act 1980.

43 Hampshire 332 Comment Para. 5.2 The County Council notes that stable development close to the Noted but considered too detailed County highway will require the consideration of new crossing facilities for inclusion in the guidelines. Council for horses. Therefore the following sentence should be added: "Stable developments close to the highway may require new crossing facilities for horses on safety grounds. The exact extent of these facilities and how they will be delivered will need to be assessed on a case by case basis."

43 Hampshire 333 Comment Para. 6.6 HCC welcomes the suggestion that muck heaps must be sited Noted but considered too detailed County where they will not cause a nuisance to users of public rights of for inclusion in the guidelines. Council way. The document should state that muck heaps should be located at least 6 metres away from any public right of way.

44 RSPB 340 Comment General The RSPB broadly supports the guidelines which clarify the Noted Comment complicated issue of when planning permission is required. Particularly welcome the advice to ask the planning department when in doubt and it is vital that the guidance is robust enough to ensure that any potential ecological issues are picked up.

44 RSPB 341 Comment Section The document highlights the need to consider landscape issues Ecological considerations are taken 5.3 and to keep new structures to a minimum. The document into account in assessing suitability should also acknowledge the need to evaluate the ecological of new buildings as are other issues value of land considered for such development. such as flooding, access and impact on any nearby neighbours. However, not considered necessary to rehearse all these considerations within the guidelines.

44 RSPB 342 Comment Section Welcome the recognition of the potential impacts of the Noted but considered too detailed 6.2 proliferation of paddocks, poor pasture management and the for inclusion in the guidelines. introduction of ancillary structures. It would be useful to include some guidance as to what constitutes both unsuitable materials for boundary and internal enclosures (Section 6.3) and a knowledgeable person qualified to produce a pasture management plan (Section 6.4).

44 RSPB 343 Comment Para. 6.15 It is stated that the availability of manages "may reduce the use Conditions relating to maneges can of the open Forest". In this context, additional guidance on the be reviewed but do not need to be appropriate level of use of such facilities would be useful. stipulated in the guidelines.

45 Local 350 Object Para. 4.4 If, as is outlined in paragraph 4.4 "Simply turning horses out to Noted but the making of any related Resident graze land is not a change of use", then Policy DP21 in the Core byelaws falls outside the scope of Strategy has no relevance. The NPA has two statutory purposes the guidelines. and where there is a conflict between the two, the Sandford Principle confirms that the conservation and enhancement of the environment should take precedence over the public's enjoyment. If legislation does not exist to stop agricultural holdings being turned into equestrian 'pony paddocks' then a byelaw should be introduced.

45 Local 351 Object Para. 4.5 Rather than making matters clearer, this paragraph states that The proposed changes to paragraph Resident "…this will normally require planning permission…" and that it 4.5 will ensure that the draft SPD is is a "grey" area. This gives licence to landowners to use fields as consistent with the advice set out at they want and that enforcement officers won't stop them. In paragraph 8.42 of the Core Strategy. the New Forest horses can be ridden anywhere, and as a result if there is a volume of horses in an area erosion of the Forest takes place. Commercial grass liveries, unless unchecked, will have a huge impact on the Forest causing much erosion and disturbance to the wildlife. It also changes the culture of the Forest and leaves less land for use by commoners. Paragraph 4.5 is inadequate to deal with this problem and needs to be much more specific (i) the word 'normally' should be deleted as its inclusion will be interpreted as 'there are exceptions' and they will presume they are one and (ii) just having a stock density is inadequate to determine if a change of use has occurred. Other indicators include horse equipment left lying around, the use of corrals and whether the horses turned out are owned by one owner or each have a separate owners, thus increasing the volume of horse use in the Forest. After two years we still do not have clear concise guidelines to determine what equestrian use is acceptable to preserve the very nature of the Forest. If the volume of horses continues to rise the very fabric of the Forest will continue to be under threat by erosion and disturbance.

46 Local 360 Object 4.5 Until the planning 'grey areas' are resolved any policy will fail. As above. Resident There should be a clear line between personnel use and a commercial livery business. There should be stricter controls for commercial businesses. By admitting that determining whether or not there has been a change of use is a 'notoriously grey areas' in planning law and that it is very difficult to make 'hard and fast' rule, any scheme will fail.

47 Local 370 Object General Agricultural land is for food rather than being used for a Noted Resident Comment recreational past time. The use is of no tourism benefit and the revenue generated does not help local people.

48 New Forest 380 Object General Guidance needs to be applied with considerable flexibility. The Noted Equestrian Comment draft Guidance suggests that all horses can be safely left to Association graze in undivided fields of 0.5ha or more, but this is clearly not the case. The needs of the animal must take precedence free of any arbitrary division between agricultural and recreational land use. 48 New Forest 381 Object Para. 3.2 The NPA is once again understating the value of equestrian Paragraphs 1.1 and 3.1 do recognise Equestrian activity to the New Forest. Horse keeping does make a positive the value of horse riding and Association contribution to the Forest and is an intrinsic part of keeping in the New Forest. commoning. The broader importance of promoting equestrian activities in farm diversification is recognised in national policy in PPS7.

48 New Forest 382 Object Para. 6.14 The section on maneges does not address the excessive Conditions relating to maneges can Equestrian - 6.16 conditions routinely placed in new maneges in the New Forest. be reviewed but do not need to be Association The present condition limiting their use to the exercising of stipulated in the guidelines. horses belonging to or under the control of the owner of the land goes far beyond what is necessary to prevent commercial use of a manage and directly conflicts with policies to limit the impact of riding on the Open Forest. This condition should be revised and a new flexibility incorporated into the Guidelines.