Appeal 6000823

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a timber-clad agricultural barn at [site address] in accordance with the application W/24/00576/AGR.

An application for the award of costs has been made by [name] against Wychavon District Council. This is subject to a separate decision.

In an attempt to address some of the Council’s outlined concerns with the proposal, the appellant submitted amended plans as part of the appeal that altered the scale and design of the proposed agricultural building. The Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals England advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the LPA and by interested parties at the application stage. No exceptional circumstances as to why the amended plans should be accepted have been demonstrated. Accordingly, I have considered the appeal in line with the plans/drawings that were considered by the Council in reaching its decision.

The Council has acknowledged that its decision notice refers to an incorrect proposed drawing (an earlier version). For the avoidance of doubt, the following drawings have been considered in my determination of the appeal: - Site Location and Block Plan – [name] ‘[name], [name]: 5909-06 [name] - [name] and Barn Floor Plan – [name] ‘[name], [name]: 5909-04 [name] - Indicative Section – [name] ‘[name], [name]. 5909-08 [name]

There is no statutory requirement to have regard to the development plan under the prior approval process. As such, I have had regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) only in so far as they are material to the matters for consideration.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development falls within the scope of permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), with particular regard to whether it would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within its agricultural unit; and, if so • Whether the siting, design and external appearance of the proposal is suitable, with particular regard as to whether it would preserve the significance of nearby heritage assets.

Under Schedule 2, Part 6 Class A of the GDPO, for erection of a building on agricultural land that is comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more to be permitted development, it must be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.

The appellant farms about 16.2 hectares (40 acres) of grassland, used in rotation for grazing roughly 200 sheep and for summer hay production. The Council does not dispute that the appeal site relates to an agricultural unit or that its overall size exceeds five hectares. From the available evidence, the proposal would also not involve development being carried out on a separate parcel of land forming part of the unit which is less than 1 hectare in area.

The proposed barn would store site machinery, forage, and purchased sheep feed. The appellant’s landholding has expanded over time, and based on the evidence and my site visit, there are currently no agricultural buildings available for these needs.

No robust evidence has been presented by the Council to refute the appellant’s need for an agricultural building, instead it contests that the scale of the proposed building has not been shown to be reasonably necessary for the size of the agricultural holding.

Provided the maximum size parameters within the Class are not exceeded, the McKay & Walker judgment1 held that building size was irrelevant in deciding whether a building was reasonably necessary. In line with this approach, I am not obliged to consider whether a smaller barn than that proposed would suffice, in assessing whether the proposed building would be reasonably necessary for the 1 McKay & Walker v SSE & [name] [1989] JPL 59018. purposes of agriculture. Indeed, whether a smaller or simpler building would suffice would be a question of ‘absolutely’ rather than ‘reasonably’ necessary.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposed development would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within its agricultural unit, and thus falls within the scope of permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

The appeal site forms part of a gently rolling rural landscape. It is largely characterised by open farmland frequently intersected by hedgerows or stock-fencing. The surrounding area contains some low-density built form, consisting of a mix of modern and historic domestic and agricultural buildings that are predominantly laid out in a dispersed manner.

The appeal proposal is a sizeable building, but agricultural buildings are typically large, while given its use and the surrounding rural context, the building’s scale would not appear untoward. Furthermore, the size of the building has been suitably justified by the appellant having regard to the operational requirements of the agricultural enterprise.

The use of a large modern roller-shutter door and rooflights would introduce contemporary elements that contrast with the more traditional aesthetic of the rest of the proposed barn. However, as the building is a new structure and these features would not be readily visible from public viewpoints, I do not consider this contrast to result in any material harm to the building’s overall character. Furthermore, the simple form and proposed external finishes—including horizontal timber cladding, a brick plinth, and plain rosemary roof tiles—would ensure that the proposed building displays an appropriate agricultural vernacular. This would be reflective of, without directly mimicking, the character of nearby built form, including the converted [name] ([name] listed).

The building would be positioned close to an adjacent rural lane where, despite the presence of mature vegetation, its scale means it would still be perceptible within the landscape. Nevertheless, views of the proposal would be highly localised, and are likely to remain both partial and transient in nature. Moreover, the proposed materials and overall agricultural form of the barn would enable it to sit comfortably within its rural surroundings.

Turning to the nearby listed buildings, the appeal property sits approximately 100m from [name] and approximately 110m from [address] (Grade II Listed).

The significance of [name] is principally derived from its age, its agricultural origins, and the extent of retained historic fabric. These combine to form a building that is an integral part of the historic agricultural landscape. The building has though since been converted to a dwelling, the modern interventions associated with its domestic use have reduced some of its original agricultural character and legibility. The available evidence also indicates that [name] once formed part of a traditional farmstead; however, no other original farm buildings survive, and the former farmyard has been subdivided, with ownership now fragmented. As a result, the original layout and functional coherence of the historic farmstead have been largely lost.

[address], is a historic domestic dwelling. The significance of [address] lies in its age, partly agricultural origins, retained original fabric, and pleasing aesthetic appearance as a thatched cottage.

The rural setting, including largely open expanses of extensive countryside, also positively contribute to the significance of both of the above identified listed buildings.

The siting of the proposed barn would allow it to be read in conjunction with nearby buildings, most notably [name] and [name], such that it would not appear isolated but rather as part of a collection of well-spaced farm buildings. The proposal would also be sufficiently separated from the previously identified listed buildings to ensure it would neither physically dominate them nor detract from their predominantly open rural setting. As previously noted, the barn’s agricultural vernacular and functional appearance would be appropriate to its context. Consequently, the proposed siting, design, and external appearance of the proposed barn would not cause harm to the setting of either [name] or [address], and their significance would therefore be preserved.

With regards to [address] Farmhouse (Grade II Listed), its significance is again primarily associated with its historic agricultural origins. Owing to the distances involved, local topography, intervening buildings, and vegetation, there is little to no intervisibility between the proposed development and this listed building. From the evidence before me there is also no known historic connection between the two sites. Nor would the proposal affect the visual relationship between [address] Farmhouse and [name]. Accordingly, I do not consider the proposal would affect the setting or significance of [address] Farmhouse.

Bringing the above together I find the siting, design and external appearance of the proposal is suitable, and it would preserve the significance of nearby heritage assets. In so far as it is material, the appeal scheme therefore complies with Policies SWDP6, SWDP21, SWDP24, and SWDP25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (adopted 2016). Together these policies seek to ensure the delivery of high-quality design that is reflective of its surroundings, including preserving or enhancing the significance of heritage assets.

The Council submitted draft conditions in the event that the appeal was to be allowed. However, Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO does not provide any The specified conditions, which I draw to the attention of both parties, require the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved details, impose a time limit for implementation, and require the building to be removed if it ceases to be used for agricultural purposes, with the land then restored to its former condition. In addition, where development is permitted under Class A(a), the developer must notify the local planning authority in writing within 7 days of the date on which the development is substantially completed.

For the reasons outlined above the appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted, subject to the exceptions, limitations and conditions outlined in A.1 and A.2 of Class A, Part 6, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.