Appeal 6001039

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 an agricultural metal shed building at [site address] , [site address] , Kingswood, Gloucestershire [postcode] in accordance with the application [name].25/1380/AGR and the details submitted with it.

The description of the proposal has been amended in the banner heading above to omit the words ‘see report and drawings for details’, as they are not a description of development.

The appellant has confirmed that the appeal relates to application Ref: S.25/1380/AGR and not S.25/0809/AGR, which was for a similar proposal on the same site. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appellant has submitted evidence in the form of new photos, hay sales information, correspondence from the police, a declaration and a letter of support. Due to the nature of the information, and that the Council has had the opportunity to review them, I am satisfied that taking them into account would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. As such I have accepted the information.

Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO sets out that agricultural development, including the erection of a building, which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more is permitted development, subject to certain restrictions, limitations and conditions.

This includes a requirement that, under [name].2 (2) (i) of Class A, the developer applies to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting, design and external appearance of the building.

The Council’s reason for refusal states that it has not been demonstrated that the land is being used as part of an agricultural business or trade, and thereby not constituting agricultural land. The Council also explains in its statement that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Therefore, the Council contends that the proposal is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

Whilst not representing a formal reason for refusal, the Council has indicated that if it had considered that the land is being used as part of an agricultural business or trade, it would have required prior approval for the siting, design and external appearance of the building. Moreover, due to its isolated nature, the Council would have requested further information, and support for it would not have been likely.

Accordingly, the main issues are: • whether the appeal proposal would be permitted development under Schedule2, Part 6 Class A of the GPDO, with particular regard to whether the land is in use for agriculture and is used for the purposes of a trade or business and whether the proposal is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture; and • whether prior approval should be granted having regard to matters of siting, design and external appearance.

The appellant states that he has lived and worked at [site address] for over 34 years, during which time he has reared sheep, cut hay and maintained the land. The application form declares that the total area of the agricultural unit is 7 hectares, and the land has been in use for agriculture for the purposes of a trade or business for 32 years.

The proposed building would be positioned to the southern corner of a field that is located to the northern tip of the wider land holding, adjacent to a pump house and close to what appeared to be a sewerage treatment works.

It is claimed that the building is required to securely store agricultural machinery and equipment to meet insurance requirements as well as store feed in a manner that is away from weather and pests, support health and safety compliance and efficient working practices, and reduce visual clutter by consolidating scattered equipment.

To be permitted under Class A, the proposed agricultural building must be sited on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit and be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.

For the purposes of Class A, ‘agricultural land’ is defined at paragraph D1 as “... land which, before development permitted by this Part is carried out is land in use for agriculture and which is used for the purposes of a trade or business...”.

There is no definition of ‘agriculture’ in the GPDO and is thereby taken from s336(1) of the Act, which sets out examples of agricultural activities. This is not an exhaustive list and includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur, or for the purposes of its use in the farming of the land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes.

In a 2023 appeal1 relating to the conversion of an existing barn on the land holding to a dwelling under Class Q of the GPDO, the Inspector concluded that the primary use of the land was agricultural and the equestrian activity amounted to an incidental use. Whilst this appeal was dismissed on a different matter, the Council granted an approval2 under Class Q relating to the same barn in 2024.

On my site visit I saw sheep in the northern field as well as the storage of, amongst other things, a tractor and fencing poles within the barn subject to the unbegun Class Q proposal, which has open elements and was not secure. I did not see any horses on the land holding and the equestrian all weather surface was not in use and appeared to be storing pieces of equestrian equipment.

On the basis of the evidence before me and from my own observations, I find no reason to disagree with the Inspector’s previous conclusion on this matter and that the land is in use for agriculture.

I recognise that the details of confirmed hay sales dated September 2024 has been presented on what appears to be a word document. Moreover, it does not contain the level of detail a more formal document would be expected to hold. However, it does include customer details, the number of bales involved and associated prices.

Based on the submitted evidence, including the [name] and Livestock registration numbers, and in the absence of compelling evidence that trading or the business has ceased, I am satisfied that the land is being used for such purposes.

The Council contends that a new building would not be required if the barn subject to the Class Q approval could be utilised. Nevertheless, a letter from an insurance representative identifies that the farm has no secure building, including this barn, that is of a size that the farm implements can be safely and securely stored. As a result, insurance companies have declined to offer insurance on the grounds of there not being a secure building in which to store the main farm equipment that is to be insured. In the absence of robust evidence to the contrary and from my own observations I see no reason to come to a different conclusion and that the proposed building is reasonably necessary.

In view of all the above, the land is in use for agriculture and is used for the purposes of a trade or business and the proposal is reasonably necessary for the 1 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/C1625/W/23/3317277 2 Planning Decision Ref: S.24/0583/P3Q purposes of agriculture. Consequently, the proposed development would therefore be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

The proposed building would measure approximately 14m long, 9m wide and 4.3m to the ridge, consisting of profiled metal cladding in a green colour finish, and would have an appearance typical of an agricultural building. The building would be positioned within a dip in the field and against a backdrop of established trees and adjacent to a pump house with a utilitarian appearance.

The proposed building would be setback, with limited views of it from [site address] , most noticeably to either side of a pair of cottages adjacent to the access point and where the road crosses a watercourse. Despite the building being visible from a nearby public footpath, the proposed building would be unlikely to draw attention and would not appear as a dominant or incongruous addition in the landscape.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed building would be acceptable. Prior approval should therefore be granted.

The Council states that the development is in, near or likely to affect the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation / Special Protection Area (SAC/SPA), which is a European Site as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations), which hosts internationally important populations of several species of waterbirds.

The grant of planning permission under Article 3(1) of the GPDO is subject to the provisions of the GPDO for each class of development and compliance with Regulations 75 to 78 of the Habitats Regulations. Effectively, Article 3(1) provides a pre-commencement condition which must be met, where the development would affect a European protected habitat, such as a SAC/SPA, before the works can be undertaken as permitted development. This includes a separate application to the Council under Regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations to allow the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment and, depending on the outcome, this would determine whether, in terms of that matter, the scheme could be undertaken as permitted development under the GPDO.

Article 3(1) and Regulations 75-78 secure a separate process by which development only proceeds where it has been confirmed via a Regulation 77 approval from the Council that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of designated sites. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC/SPA or undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

The Council did not refuse the application on ecological grounds. The Council’s questionnaire states that the development would not affect a protected species whilst elsewhere the Council states that the appeal site is located within an amber zone for newts. However, no further information has been presented on this matter and from my own observations, there is no convincing evidence before me that there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present and affected by the development.

The Council has suggested a condition that prior approval of the local planning authority is required due to its isolated nature, proximity to a public right of way and biodiversity. These matters have been appraised above.

Development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A is permitted subject to conditions set out in [name].2. under Class A. For this type of development, the GPDO does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.