Walkthrough: an equestrian change of use with an arena

Keeping horses is not agriculture in planning terms, and an equestrian change of use application starts from that fact. Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines agriculture to include the use of land as grazing land, so turning horses out to graze and doing nothing else remains agricultural. Once the land is used for keeping, exercising, training or liveries, the use has changed and permission is needed.

An arena adds a second limb, because forming one involves engineering operations as well as a change of use.

What follows is an illustrative walkthrough, drawn from how these applications commonly run rather than from a named case. The site is four hectares of grazing with a small block of stables, on a rural lane, within a wider countryside policy area.

Why keeping horses is not agriculture in planning terms

The distinction that matters is between grazing and keeping. Horses grazing a field, fed only by what grows there, sit inside the agricultural definition. Horses fed supplementary feed, rugged, exercised, jumped, stabled or ridden on the land are being kept, and that is a material change of use.

Two consequences follow, and the second surprises people.

The change of use needs planning permission. And the permitted development rights for agricultural buildings under Part 6 do not apply, because those rights attach to agricultural units and equestrian use is not agriculture. A stable block erected under an agricultural prior notification, on land used for keeping horses, is not lawful.

Applicants who have relied on the agricultural route for years often discover this when they apply for something else. That is an uncomfortable conversation and it is better had early.

The existing use and what had to be evidenced

The owners had kept four horses on the land for six years, with a field shelter and a small muck heap.

Establishing the existing use mattered for two reasons. It set the baseline against which the change was assessed, and it raised the possibility that the equestrian use was already lawful through the passage of time.

The evidence assembled was ordinary and effective: dated photographs, feed and farrier invoices, insurance documents and a statutory declaration. The advice taken was that the safest route was to apply for the whole scheme on its merits rather than to rely on an immunity argument, and to note the existing use in the Planning Statement as part of the baseline.

That decision cost a little in fees and removed a large risk. Where an immunity argument is available, a lawful development certificate is the formal way to confirm it, and it is the only way.

Siting the arena and the surfacing specification

Arenas are standard sizes, and a 20 by 40 metre arena is a large flat rectangle wherever you put it.

Siting worked through three tests: proximity to the existing stable block so the development reads as one group, the amount of cut and fill required, and visibility from the lane and from the public footpath crossing the adjoining field. The chosen position sat against an existing hedge on the northern boundary, using the natural fall of the land so that no retaining wall was needed and the excavated material could be reused as a low bund.

Surfacing was a sand and fibre mix on a permeable sub-base over a geotextile membrane. Fencing was post and rail at 1.2 metres rather than solid kickboards, because kickboards read as a building from a distance and post and rail does not.

No mirrors, no permanent jumps stored at the edge, and the arena colour specified to a muted tone. Small points that objectors raise.

Drainage from the arena and where it goes

An arena is permeable on the surface and the sub-base still has to drain somewhere.

The design used a perimeter drain to a soakaway sized from percolation testing, rather than a connection to the roadside ditch. That mattered because rubber crumb and fibre migrate over time, and a discharge carrying them into a watercourse is a pollution issue as well as a planning one. Where infiltration is not possible, a discharge needs the consent of whoever controls the receiving ditch or watercourse.

Muck storage was relocated and designed with an impermeable base and a sealed drain, away from the soakaway and from the field drain that crosses the site. A short Drainage Strategy covering the arena, the yard and the muck store answered all of it in one place.

Floodlighting and the curfew condition

Lighting was the contentious part, as it usually is.

The lane is unlit, the parish council objected on dark skies grounds, and an ecologist identified a hedgerow commuting route for bats along the northern boundary.

The scheme that was granted used four columns rather than six, at a reduced mounting height, with asymmetric luminaires aimed into the arena, full cut-off above the horizontal, a warm colour temperature and no illumination of the hedgerow. A Lighting Assessment gave the environmental zone, the luminance levels, the spill contours at the boundary and the modelled effect on the hedgerow.

The condition imposed a curfew, requiring the lights to be off outside stated hours and switched by a timer rather than by hand. Curfew hours vary between authorities and are a matter for the case officer, and offering a curfew is generally better than having one imposed. Where hours later prove impractical, the route to change them is a variation application, as the walkthrough on an hours condition varied under section 73 sets out.

Traffic, parking and horsebox movements

Private equestrian use generates few movements, and the ones it generates are large.

The application showed a horsebox turning within the site, an access width and surfaced apron capable of taking one, visibility splays at the gate supported by a speed survey on the lane, and a hardstanding for two vehicles and a trailer. Gates set back from the carriageway so a vehicle can pull clear before opening them.

That set-back detail is worth doing properly. A horsebox stopped on a single track lane with the gate shut is the sort of thing that generates an objection from the highway authority and from every neighbour who has been stuck behind one.

The conditions limiting commercial activity

The permission was for private use, and the conditions said so in several ways.

They limited the use to private equestrian purposes connected with the occupiers of the property, excluded any commercial livery, riding school, training or instruction for reward, excluded competitions and events, restricted the number of horses kept, tied the lighting to the approved scheme and the curfew, required the surface and the fencing to match the approved specification, and required the arena surface to be removed and the land reinstated if the equestrian use ceased for a stated period.

A condition of that last kind, requiring reinstatement if the use ceases, is worth reading closely. It sets a period of non-use after which the obligation triggers, and an owner who stops riding for a season while recovering from an injury should know what the period is.

Muck management also appeared as a condition, requiring the heap to stay in the approved position with its impermeable base maintained. That is an environmental health point as much as a planning one, and neighbours raise it more often than they raise the arena.

Read that list before agreeing to it. A condition excluding commercial livery is the one that bites first, because a stable with a spare box and a neighbour who wants to rent it is a common and entirely innocent route into a breach. If the intention is ever to take liveries, apply for it now and argue the traffic and amenity case once, rather than applying to vary a condition later with a neighbour already objecting.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. A Lawful Development Certificate is the only formal way to confirm that an existing use is lawful. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.