Painswick stables and a barn have won planning permission on land south of Edge Road in Gloucestershire, after an inspector rejected the applicant’s claim that the scheme was exempt from biodiversity net gain. The appeal was allowed on 14th October 2026, but the requirement for at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value still applies.
The decision overturns Stroud District Council’s refusal of a new stable block, barn and shingle track. For neighbours, the approved scheme is the reduced proposal without the originally proposed riding arena extension. It does not grant permission for a commercial livery business.
I would read this as a useful distinction between proving an exemption and showing that a development can meet the rules. The Painswick stables applicant did not establish the first point, but the inspector accepted that the necessary habitat improvement could be delivered. Work cannot begin until the council has approved a Biodiversity Gain Plan.
Why the Painswick stables exemption argument failed
Inspector Gareth Sibley considered appeal 6006756, relating to application S.25/1429/FUL. The main dispute was whether the reduced scheme qualified for the small-impact, or de minimis, exemption from the statutory biodiversity gain condition.
That test concerns habitat impact, rather than simply the size or appearance of the buildings. As the inspector explained it, development must not affect onsite priority habitat and must affect less than 25 square metres of habitat with a biodiversity value above zero, as well as less than five metres of linear habitat.
The Painswick stables evidence included a September 2025 habitat survey and a report identifying developed surfaces, modified grassland and other neutral grassland across the wider site. It recorded no priority or irreplaceable habitat and concluded that no degradation had taken place.
However, the inspector found that the report did not clearly map and quantify the habitats affected by the revised proposal. It also lacked a sufficient historic assessment to resolve whether the claimed baseline, the starting habitat value used in the calculation, was reliable.
The access was particularly important. The council identified a disputed track area exceeding 25 square metres. Its size did not itself prove that more than the exemption threshold of valuable habitat would be affected, but neither did calling a surface gravel establish that it had no biodiversity value.
Older aerial photographs showed more grassed areas than the submitted mapping indicated. Later photographs suggested more defined surfaces associated with made ground. The applicant said the boundaries had remained broadly consistent and there had been no degradation since 2017.
The inspector did not treat those photographs as a definitive ecological survey. They could not establish precise habitat type, condition or value. Instead, they raised a reasonable question about changes in surface character that the ecological evidence had not adequately explained.
His conclusion on the exemption was direct: “I am not satisfied that the exemption applies.” That finding meant the statutory biodiversity gain condition applied to the permission.
Permission was still possible
The Painswick stables appeal did not end with that failed exemption claim. The inspector went on to consider whether the required gain could actually be provided, rather than treating incomplete exemption evidence as an automatic reason to refuse the development.
The surveys identified no significant ecological obstacle. The works would mainly affect existing building footprints, hardstanding, gravel, bare ground and disturbed ground. Land had also been identified for habitat enhancement.
There were important qualifications. The reported percentage gain was not conclusive because it depended on the disputed baseline, the completed metric had not been supplied, and the habitat plan appeared to relate to an earlier version of the scheme. The enhancement parcel might also lie outside the development boundary.
Land outside that boundary would count as offsite provision and would need the appropriate statutory arrangements. A higher historic habitat value could reduce the claimed surplus. Those issues still need resolving; the appeal did not approve the applicant’s calculation as a finished package.
Nevertheless, the inspector accepted that suitable onsite measures, registered offsite gains or, as a last resort, statutory biodiversity credits could deliver the objective. He considered that the statutory condition could secure compliance.
The landscape and use limits still matter
The site is in the Cotswold National Landscape. The inspector gave substantial weight to conserving and enhancing its natural beauty, but found the modest scheme sensitively located and related to the established equestrian use and existing buildings.
For the Painswick stables proposal, replacement buildings of appropriate scale and siting would avoid harm to landscape character and special qualities. That is a judgement about this particular scheme, rather than a general entitlement to erect equestrian buildings anywhere in protected countryside.
The permission contains three express conditions: development must begin within three years, follow the approved drawings, and comply with the mitigation measures in the July 2025 ecological report. Those measures include precautionary working practices and controls intended to protect species and nearby habitats.
The inspector also addressed concerns about access and livestock safety. He found limited evidence that use of the existing access arrangement and shingle track would cause unacceptable highway or operational safety effects. Representations were considered, but did not alter the outcome.
The practical lesson for applicants
I would take the Painswick stables decision as a reason to prepare two clear lines of evidence where an exemption is disputed: why the exemption applies, and how the gain could be delivered if it does not. A survey of the wider holding is not necessarily enough to explain the precise development footprint.
That means checking the revised plans against habitat mapping, explaining relevant historic changes, and identifying whether proposed enhancement lies inside or outside the application boundary. Removing part of a scheme should also trigger an update to the supporting calculations and habitat plans.
The statutory framework discussed in this appeal is England’s regime under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Other exemptions and application-date rules must be assessed separately; this decision resolves the exemption argument actually put before the inspector.
Read the full official appeal decision for its reasoning and conditions. Our biodiversity net gain guide explains the wider process, alongside the government’s current exemption guidance.
0 Comments