How it began

In 2019, the charity was contacted by the North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA) planning department and advised that some of our activities required planning permission. Crucially, the NYMNPA confirmed in writing that it had no objection in principle to what we were doing. The concerns raised were limited and practical in nature: the site needed tidying, and specific steps were outlined to address this. 

We acted exactly as advised. We paid for the Authority’s own pre-planning service, which was supportive, and carried out the tidying that had been requested. We then submitted a planning application in good faith. That application was assessed by planning officers and resulted in a formal report recommending approval. The report made clear that the issues raised had been addressed and that the application was suitable to be approved when it went before the planning committee in early 2020. 

At that point, there was every indication that the matter would be resolved routinely and proportionately, and that the charity could continue its work within the planning framework the Authority itself had set out. ​

​

Here is a link to the NYMNPA's recommendation for approval: Approval report 2019.pdf

Covid

Early 2020 - Before a decision was made, the planning committee deferred the application pending a site visit. Then the pandemic struck and lockdown prevented them from visiting. 

​​

Unfortunately, we did not benefit from any government grants or the furlough scheme. Lockdowns meant we lost all on-site staff and volunteers. Trustees were stranded overseas or unable to travel. What had previously been a team effort became the responsibility of a single person.  

​

During this period, Lou was left running the entire operation alone. She continued caring for approximately 26 horses on site, including some with special needs, responded to welfare calls from local owners who were seriously ill or shielding and unable to look after their horses, maintained essential fundraising through online sales, and kept the charity functioning during one of the most difficult periods in living memory. 

​

With one person effectively doing the work of several full-time roles, and with animal welfare rightly taking absolute priority, the condition of the site inevitably deteriorated. This was not due to neglect or disregard, but to the stark reality that there was simply no one else available to help. ​

Refusal and enforcement

September 2020 – When the planning committee visited and made its decision, the application was refused, largely due to the untidy condition of the site, and a planning enforcement notice was issued. 

​

We appealed. That process took around 18 months. During that time, we took on staff to help at the farm and began addressing the NYMNPA’s concerns as funds allowed.  

​

10-11/08/2022 – The appeal was heard. We were partially successful in the appeal. We were granted partial planning permission - for a toilet and shower block and a replacement summerhouse. The Planning Inspector also confirmed that we were not generating excessive traffic or adversely affecting neighbours as had been claimed in opposition to our application. However, the overall appeal outcome meant that the enforcement notice stood in relation to the use of the farm as a horse rescue centre. 

​

In practical terms, this required us to remove items associated with the charity’s activities from the barn and surrounding areas, and not to “keep” horses stabled on the site. ​

Our compliance with the enforcement notice

By this stage, we had opened the shop, which became our operational base. We rented an off-site storage unit and either sold or moved all items required by the enforcement notice into storage, fully complying within the deadline. Our costs and travel time increased significantly as a result. 

​

16/01/2020 – We took planning advice regarding the horses. We were advised that horses living on land as grazing animals are classed as agricultural and are not considered to be “kept” for planning purposes, regardless of ownership. The NYMNPA had also written to us in 2019 confirming that the horses were not considered part of the planning application as they are grazed. On that basis, the horses remained on the land. 

​

Other items that remained on site were haymaking equipment and agricultural machinery used to maintain the farm and land, which has always been a farm, and agriculture does not require planning permission. There were also items belonging to Lou Smith, who lives on site in order to be on hand night and day for horse emergencies as well as providing daily care as needed. these were agricultural items including tractors and trailers, and other items it is not unusual to find on a farm. These were not connected to the charity use and were not listed in the enforcement notice. 

​

When the NYMNPA visited to check compliance, they said they had expected this machinery to be removed as well. We reminded them that it was not related to the charity and had never been part of the enforcement notice. We suggested that we might be able to move some of them into the yard area so that they were less visible, but that it would cost us quite a lot in terms of hired labour to do so, and we did not want to do it unless it would resolve their concerns fully. The NYMNPA simply told us we had not complied and were not prepared to discuss anything. 

​

Separately, and in an effort to improve relations, we submitted a new, smaller planning application to use the barn for storage and build 3 stables on the 4-acre part of the farm. The NYMNPA refused the application without even visiting the site, however we appealed and planning permission was granted by the Planning Inspector on 03/04/2025.​

“We'll see you in court.”

08/08/2024 – We attempted to engage constructively with the NYMNPA and asked how we could move forward positively. We even offered to provide a full inventory of everything on site so there was no confusion. Unfortunately, they declined to even discuss matters further and instead issued injunction proceedings, at a reported initial cost of £32,000. 

​

After taking legal advice, the Trustees concluded that defending the injunction would cost around £85,000 — far beyond our means. Reluctantly, we decided to represent ourselves. 

 

October 2025 – Preliminary injunction hearing. Perhaps the NYMNPA thought that we would just give up and shut the charity down, we didn't because we couldn't. At the first court hearing, the Judge had clearly read all the documentation and strongly encouraged both parties to negotiate to avoid a full hearing and said that his future Judgement was unlikely to suit both parties. We tried to do this, however the NYMPA refused to talk to us and instead held a private meeting between them selves. They told us that matters were not progressing quickly enough and that they would “see us in court.” 

​

06/01/2025 - Second hearing. This was mainly about procedural matters, however the judge ordered that a full inventory of everything on site was created. 

​

Injunction hearing & more planning applications

10/03/2025 – At the injunction hearings, the NYMNPA were represented by a full legal team, including a solicitor, a barrister, and several planning officers.

​

The Judge accepted that the distinction between “grazing” and “keeping” horses is a grey area. However, he concluded that in this specific case, based on the information before him, because the horses were sometimes fed and not moved elsewhere, they were being “kept” and therefore required planning permission. This interpretation is at odds with many planning decisions across the country, but with no experience of High Court litigation and no legal representation, we did the best we could to present our case. 

​

The Judge also ruled that while horses were being “kept,” the land was not agricultural for planning purposes, meaning some agricultural machinery had to be removed. Haymaking equipment was allowed to remain, and it was confirmed that items belonging to Lou Smith were not subject to the injunction and did not need to be removed. The full inventory detailing everything on site was used to decide what could stay or go. 

​

The injunction order was issued, giving us until 19/11/2025 to comply. We did so by the deadline. The horses were moved to foster homes or alternative nearby fields. 

​

The Judge awarded the NYMNPA 90% of their costs, on the basis that the law was found to be on their side regarding the horses.

​

We had already submitted a new planning application to use 4 acres of the farm for keeping horses that are privately owned. This was refused immediately and the NYMNPA didn’t even carry out their normal site visit but we won on appeal on 03/04/2025. Unfortunately, the appeal decision was issued after the injunction decision, so the Judge was unable to take it into account. 

​

July 2025 – We submitted a planning application to apply for permission to “keep” horses for the remaining 20 acres of land, but the NYMNPA refused to determine it. Despite what their letter suggests, there is no right of appeal against a refusal to determine. This meant that the matter did not get seen or discussed by the Planning Committee or anyone else. 

​​​

Final hearing and costs

11/12/2025 – At the final hearing, we also updated the Judge that we now had planning permission to keep horses on 4 acres of the farm. The NYMNPA disputed the number of horses allowed and the validity of the planning permission we had been granted to keep horses and attempted to introduce a new plan restricting their location to a small area of the garden, which would have been unworkable on both space and welfare grounds. The Judge rejected this, noted that the appeal Planning Inspector clearly considered that the NYMNPA had behaved unreasonably, his actual words were “they were wrong and you were right” and advised us to apply for planning permission for the rest of the site on the basis that a planning inspector was in the best position to judge how many horses should live there. To allow time for this, he extended the compliance date to 31 March 2026, even though we had already complied.  He also told the NYMNPA that if they brought minor issues before him in future, they would receive “short shrift”. We consider that by the third hearing the Judge was beginning to see that they were making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

The Judge also reassessed costs and reduced them to £41,000, significantly lower than the £64,000 originally claimed. The Judge had previously ruled that the costs would be assessed, not on a detailed basis but on the much quicker/cheaper summary basis, which only very rarely results in careful checking of the claims made. However, we felt confident that many of the costs were excessive and that some were not even chargeable. We made a strong argument about this, the Judge took our arguments seriously and checked each item, resulting in this very substantial reduction. The Judge also ordered the NYMNPA to pay its own costs for the final hearing, disallowing that part of their claim in its entirety.

​

Refusal to consider our application

23/01/2026 - As per the judge’s advice, we submitted another application.

​

04/02/2026 – The LPA have, yet again, refused to even consider the application. This leaves us in an impossible position: the Judge has advised us to apply for planning permission, yet the NYMNPA refuses to engage with their own application process or allow us access to it!

​

Here is their latest letter refusing to consider our application: NYM2026 Decline to Determine Response.pdf

​

We think that this may be because the NYMNPA know we are likely to win at appeal if they don't grant permission, given that having horses grazing on land is both common and generally acceptable in planning terms. An important benefit to the NYMNPA of dealing with the planning application would be that they could impose suitable conditions or restrictions if they had any concerns about any aspect of the use, but we cannot move forward until this is resolved. We are currently taking legal advice regarding their actions.​

NYMNPA's latest stance (as of 05/02/2026)

05/02/2026 – Two of our Trustees attended the Planning Committee meeting at the NYMNPA’s headquarters in Helmsley, North Yorkshire. We were informed that no verbal responses would be given to the questions we raised on behalf of the charity and the wider equine community. We were told instead that written responses would be provided at a later date.

​

During the same meeting, the Authority made its position unmistakably clear. It intends to pursue recovery of the full £41,000 costs order immediately and without compromise, despite knowing from the outset that this is a sum a small, volunteer-run charity simply does not have. This Costs Order has been issued against the charity and the other defendants, - two voluntary trustees, Louisa Smith and Garry Edwards, each of which is both jointly and severally liable. They further stated that if payment is not made within the following 5 days at the time of the meeting, they will escalate matters again through the courts. This escalation was explicitly said to include the possibility of contempt of court proceedings and the recovery of the additional costs of doing this. 

​

We are deeply disappointed and disturbed that matters have been allowed to escalate to this point. The Authority has spent tens of thousands of pounds of public money relentlessly pursuing a legal action which, in practical terms, has achieved very little. Horses have been removed from the land at great cost to the charity, and a small number of minor items specified by the Judge at the NYMNPA’s request have also been removed, such as timber kept for routine fence repairs, wheelbarrows and buckets etc. Beyond this, there has been no meaningful change that could not have been achieved through cooperative engagement. While the well resourced NYMNPA has presented this outcome as a significant success, the reality is that it is a narrow and costly pyrrhic victory which has diverted already limited resources away from the charity’s work. 

​

Throughout this process, the charity’s volunteer management has been forced to divert enormous amounts of trustee time, energy and focus away from its core purpose. Time that should have been spent responding to welfare cases and improving facilities has instead been consumed by thousands of pages of legal preparation, hundreds of pages of correspondence and thousands of hours of compliance with increasingly adversarial demands while the NYMNPA moved the goalposts. 

​

Ahead of the meeting, we and many of our supporters contacted the NYMNPA to ask that the Planning Committee be given a full picture of the situation and allowed to consider the best way forward given that the charity was not in a position to pay, which the NYMNPA knew before commencing the legal action. Dozens of letters of support and a petition were submitted. Despite this, the planning officers leading the meeting chose not to show these items to the Committee, did not refer to their existence during the meeting, and explicitly told the Planning Committee that our questions should not be answered verbally. This lack of transparency was deeply concerning and reinforced the sense that the outcome was predetermined. 

​

Unfortunately, this is how the NYMNPA usually treats us and is the reason we are in this situation.

​

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this approach prioritises enforcement over resolution and process over purpose, at significant cost to both the charity and the public purse. 

​

The Authority has now publicly confirmed that it intends to recover the full £41,000 and to add any further recovery costs incurred. They remain unwilling to engage in discussions about realistic or proportionate ways forward, despite knowing the financial position of the charity. During this and other Planning Committee meetings, they made statements about the case which we believe were factually incorrect and gave a misleading impression of both our actions and the outcome of the injunction proceedings. 

​

In effect, the Authority publicly confirmed that it will continue applying maximum legal pressure against a charity and its volunteer trustees whose sole purpose is animal welfare, without any regard for the consequences. There was no acknowledgement of proportionality, no recognition of the charity’s circumstances, and no attempt to offer even the most basic flexibility, just repeated and incorrect claims about our actions, their actions, and the length of time this matter has gone on. This information appears to also have been circulated to the press and others. 

​

Animal Hostel Trust's latest stance (as of 05/02/2026)

We, along with many supporters and professionals who have followed this case, strongly dispute the fairness of being ordered to pay these costs. This is particularly so given our repeated efforts to comply at every stage, our willingness to engage constructively, and the plainly disproportionate response adopted by the NYMNPA. Nevertheless, the costs order remains legally binding unless the NYMNPA chooses to act differently. At present, the power to resolve this situation rests entirely with them. 

​

Given the sums involved, and the fact that this is a publicly funded body which appears unwilling to acknowledge error or excess, it seems unlikely that they will choose to absorb any part of these costs themselves. As a result, we are now faced with the reality of having to find £41,000 - money that would otherwise be spent directly on horse welfare, veterinary care, feed, transport, and the practical support of people who turn to us in crisis. 

​

Despite this, we remain absolutely committed to acting in the best interests of the charity, and more importantly, the horses and ponies whose lives depend on us. Even while this process has been unfolding, we have continued to respond to welfare calls, provide advice, and support horses in need. That work has not stopped - and we will not let it stop now!

​

We are deeply grateful to everyone who has supported us through what has been an exhausting, stressful and deeply unsettling period. Your messages, letters, and practical help have made it possible for us to keep going when the pressure has been immense. Whatever happens next, our priority remains the same: protecting horses and doing the right thing by them, even when doing so comes at a heavy cost to us. 

Is there anything else you can tell us about this situation?

Yes. Plenty, but like everyone else there is a limit to what we can publish. Please feel free to ask for more detail or any specific questions if you may be able to help.

​

We will be adding more info and supporting documents to this page as and when our time allows, please check back daily.​

3 special ponies

We have worked with hundreds of special ponies over the past thirty years. But these three arrived shortly after all the above started - shortly after our first ever planning application was recommended for approval, and they have all made amazing recoveries!​​