A Green Belt wellbeing scheme near Hemel Hempstead has been dismissed after an Inspector accepted the proposed outdoor therapeutic use as recreation but found that the sizeable office cabin was not an appropriate facility for it.
Appeal 6011489 concerned a small plot at Upper Bourne End Lane, where the proposal combined mindfulness, relaxation, stretching, nature-based activity and therapeutic horticulture with a moveable consultation and office unit. No overnight accommodation, hardstanding or permanent service connections were proposed.
Inspector C J Leigh accepted that the outdoor use itself could fall within the Green Belt recreation exception. The appeal nevertheless failed because the building was not shown to be necessary or appropriately connected to those activities, while the absence of a credible parking solution created a separate highway objection.
Outdoor wellbeing use accepted as recreation
The appeal site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt and forms part of an open area containing a number of small plots and buildings. Access is via a long shared track leading to the public highway.
The proposal was for a change of use from agricultural pasture to a daytime, appointment-only outdoor wellbeing and therapeutic recreation use. The appellant described activities including mindfulness, relaxation, stretching, nature-based sessions and therapeutic horticulture.
That part of the case succeeded. Leigh accepted that the proposed use of the land would be recreational and could therefore fall within Policy GB7(1)(f)(iii) of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, which allows certain material changes of use of land, including outdoor sport and recreation, provided the relevant Green Belt tests are met.
That finding is important because it confirms that outdoor recreation is not confined to conventional sports pitches or formal leisure uses. For a Green Belt wellbeing scheme, this means low-intensity therapeutic activity can qualify, depending on the facts.
For this Green Belt wellbeing scheme, the difficulty arose from the building proposed alongside the outdoor activity.
The cabin was not an appropriate facility
The scheme included a moveable Canopy ‘Aspen Office’ building intended to provide private consultation space, welfare and privacy, and administrative accommodation.
The appellant argued that this was ancillary to the outdoor recreation use. However, Leigh found little evidence explaining why such a building was needed to make the outdoor activities safe or effective, particularly given the small size of the site and the low-key, nature-based character of the proposed use.
The decision draws a useful distinction for a Green Belt wellbeing scheme: accepting recreation on the land does not automatically justify a building said to support it. The Green Belt exception does not give a free pass to any structure described as ancillary.
The Inspector noted that one-to-one consultations did not inherently depend on a Green Belt location. There was also no robust evidence explaining how those consultations were connected closely enough to the outdoor recreational use to justify the proposed building.
Its physical relationship with the rest of the site also counted against the scheme. The office would occupy a sizeable proportion of the small plot and reduce the area available for the outdoor activities relied on to justify the change of use.
Leigh described the submitted building as a sizeable prefabricated office with large glazed areas. In that context, it was not considered an appropriate facility for outdoor recreation under GB7.
Our Green Belt and grey belt guide explains the wider structure of the current national policy exceptions.
Moveable and reversible did not remove Green Belt harm
The appellant relied heavily on the building being moveable, reversible and capable of removal. A temporary permission was also offered.
Those points received very little weight. As Leigh put it: “that does not make the proposed building appropriate to the use or remove the impact on openness.”
The Inspector found that reversibility did not make the building appropriate to the use, nor did it remove the impact on Green Belt openness. The structure would still be a large building on a currently undeveloped area of land and would create a harmful visual effect while it remained there.
The decision is a reminder that temporary and moveable are not planning trump cards. They can reduce the permanence of an impact, but the decision-maker still has to assess what the development would actually do to openness and character for the period it exists.
The Inspector also found the glazed, home-office appearance of the building incongruous in the rural surroundings. Its size relative to the plot gave it a cramped appearance. That character and appearance harm attracted moderate weight.
Parking evidence created a second refusal reason
The Green Belt issue was not the only problem.
The proposal envisaged visitors to the site, but no client parking was proposed. The appellant suggested that a condition could prevent client parking on the land while allowing a single operator or volunteer vehicle.
Leigh was not persuaded. The site is in a relatively remote location with poor connections other than by private car, so visitors were considered likely to drive.
The Inspector saw that access and parking in the area were already constrained. With no robust evidence showing where adequate visitor parking could be provided, the proposal was found harmful to highway safety.
That finding carried significant weight.
There is a practical lesson here for low-intensity rural businesses and therapeutic uses. Describing a use as appointment-only or small-scale does not remove the need to demonstrate how users will arrive and where vehicles will go. If the site is car-dependent, a vague parking restriction may simply expose the weakness rather than solve it.
Wellbeing benefits carried only limited weight
The Inspector acknowledged that the therapeutic and welfare uses could benefit clients. However, because the proposed building had not been shown to be necessary for the outdoor activities, and because one-to-one consultations did not depend on a Green Belt location, those benefits attracted only limited weight.
Controls over hours and visitor numbers also did little to change the planning balance. They did not address whether the cabin was an appropriate facility and did not materially reduce the impact on openness.
For this Green Belt wellbeing scheme, the proposal was therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt and also caused highway and character harm.
Under Policy GB6 of the Framework, substantial weight had to be given to Green Belt harm. The supporting considerations did not clearly outweigh that harm, so the very special circumstances required to justify the development did not exist.
Planning Geek analysis: what the Green Belt wellbeing scheme needed to prove
The strongest practitioner point is not that wellbeing uses are unacceptable in the Green Belt. The decision says almost the opposite on that first step.
The outdoor use itself was accepted as recreation. What failed was the evidential bridge between that use and the proposed building.
For applicants pursuing a Green Belt wellbeing scheme under the outdoor recreation exception, the supporting case needs to explain why the building is needed, why it has to be on that site, why its size is proportionate and how it supports the recreation rather than becoming a separate office or consultation use.
The same discipline applies to parking. If users are expected to arrive by car, the proposal needs a credible operational answer rather than an assumption that parking can be left to condition.
Small rural plots are particularly vulnerable because even a modest cabin can occupy a substantial proportion of the available land and become the dominant feature.
The decision also shows why applicants should not rely too heavily on labels such as temporary, moveable or off-grid. Those characteristics may be helpful, but they do not displace the core planning tests.
Read the appeal decision
Appeal 6011489 was dismissed on 2nd October 2026 by Inspector C J Leigh BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI.
The application reference was 26/00635/FUL and the site was Lot B2a, Upper Bourne End Lane, Hemel Hempstead.
The official Planning Inspectorate appeal record gives the case details. You can also read the full appeal decision hosted here.
Our planning appeals guide explains the wider appeal process.
0 Comments