Three Guiseley homes have won permission in principle on a former equestrian site in the Green Belt. Inspector Chris Mayes allowed the appeal for Rei House Stables on Ripley Lane on 13th October 2026, overturning Leeds City Council’s refusal. The decision accepts residential development in principle, but it does not approve the detailed design or allow construction to begin.
The proposal involves demolishing the equestrian buildings and replacing them with three dwellings. For neighbours and anyone considering a similar site, the important point is how the inspector assessed the existing development and the scope of this first approval stage. A separate application will still have to establish whether the detailed scheme is acceptable.
I would read the Guiseley homes decision alongside its separate costs decision. The applicant succeeded on the planning merits, but the inspector refused the claim for a full award of costs against the council. Winning an appeal and proving that a council behaved unreasonably are different tests.
Why the Guiseley homes appeal succeeded
The original appeal decision, reference 6011132, identifies the applicant as Mr H Hawk of Harris Hawk. It concerns application 26/01699/PIP, dated 24th March 2026. The minimum and maximum numbers were both three, so the amount of development being considered was fixed.
Permission in principle is a two-stage route for housing development. This first stage considers the location, land use and amount of development. The second stage, technical details consent, examines the detailed proposals. In the Guiseley homes appeal, that distinction mattered because the council had assessed plans showing one possible form of redevelopment.
The inspector found that layout, scale and appearance were not fixed by this application. It would therefore have been wrong to assume that the eventual development must take the particular form shown. That did not remove Green Belt considerations from the first stage. Instead, he examined whether three dwellings could, in principle, fit the site without causing substantial harm to openness.
The existing yard was central to the assessment
The parties agreed that the site was previously developed land. It contained lawful equestrian buildings, hardstanding and infrastructure. The inspector described three separate blocks: two stable buildings and a hay and storage barn. A fenced riding arena and other equestrian features also formed part of the existing pattern of development and activity.
The Guiseley homes assessment therefore started with an occupied, developed yard rather than an entirely open tract of countryside. Views from the north and east already included buildings on the site and other built features nearby. The inspector found nothing inherent in three replacement homes that necessarily required a materially greater spread of development or visual presence.
His conclusion was that redevelopment would not cause substantial harm to Green Belt openness in either spatial or visual terms. He applied the previously developed land exception in policy GB7(1)(e) of the August 2026 national framework and found that the scheme was not inappropriate development. That meant he did not need to consider very special circumstances.
I would be careful about transferring that result to another stable yard. The Guiseley homes decision depends on the lawful existing development, the agreement about previously developed land and what could be accommodated on this particular site. An equestrian label alone does not establish that every part of a holding can be redeveloped for housing.
Landscape and location still had to be acceptable
The surrounding countryside included small fields, dwellings, agricultural buildings, allotments and quarry workings. Against that varied background, the inspector was not persuaded that three homes in principle would disrupt the landscape’s prevailing character. Their siting, scale, appearance and landscaping would still need examination at the detailed stage.
The council’s objection under its housing policy H2 relied on its view that the proposal was inappropriate Green Belt development. Once the inspector reached a different conclusion on that issue, the council had not identified conflict with the policy’s other requirements. He also found support in national policy for redeveloping previously developed land outside settlements.
Why winning did not bring a costs award
The separate costs decision was also issued on 13th October 2026. The applicant argued that Leeds had misunderstood permission in principle and relied on matters which should have been considered at the technical details stage.
The inspector’s response was clear: “a decision that is allowed on appeal does not, in itself, demonstrate unreasonable behaviour”. He found that the council’s Green Belt and housing objections arose from relevant policies and were supported through its officer report and appeal evidence. Reaching a different planning judgement did not establish the required unreasonable conduct.
The Guiseley homes costs claim also addressed the council’s decision not to contest its landscape refusal reason. The inspector did not treat that withdrawal as proof that the original objection lacked a reasonable basis. Nor was he persuaded that it had caused significant unnecessary or wasted expense, particularly because the main Green Belt dispute would have required the appeal anyway.
What happens before these homes can be built?
Technical details consent remains necessary. The Guiseley homes permission establishes the principle of three dwellings, while leaving the detailed scheme to be assessed. Anyone considering buying or developing the land should check the precise approval and the remaining requirements before treating it as a build-ready opportunity.
For anyone pursuing Guiseley homes, my practical starting point would be to compare the proposed detailed design with the features that made this appeal acceptable, especially the spread of buildings, their visual presence and the surrounding landscape. You can also read our planning appeals guidance for background on challenging a planning decision. This is an inspector’s site-specific decision, rather than a court judgment establishing a general rule.
0 Comments