Appeal 6001101

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal differs from the application form to the decision notice. The above has been taken from the application form, which adequately describes the proposal albeit I have omitted wording that is not a description of development.

The appellant submitted an amended Proposed Site Plan with the appeal that was not before the Council at the time of its decision. The amended plan delineates an area that is proposed to be outside of the curtilage and alters the position of the car parking spaces. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on this amendment. However, for reasons that will become clear in my decision, I have not taken this plan into account.

Amendments to Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) came into force on 21 May 2024 (GPDO 2024 amendment) under [name] (SI) 2024/579. Article 10 of this SI sets out transitional arrangements allowing for a determination as to prior approval under the previous provisions of Class Q of the GPDO (GPDO 2020 amendment), in respect of development that would have been permitted under Class Q before 21 May 2024. In this case, Prior approval was sought under the transitional arrangements, and I have therefore determined the appeals on the basis of the GPDO 2020 amendment.

Under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO 2020 amendment, hereafter referred to as ‘Class Q’, development is permitted consisting of (a) a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order; and (b) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building. The permitted development is subject to specific limitations and

The main issues are whether the proposal would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q. In particular: • whether the appeal building is part of an established agricultural unit and constitutes an agricultural building; and, if so, • whether the site is part of the building’s curtilage; and • whether the proposed building operations would be reasonably necessary to convert the building; and, subsequent to these • whether prior approval can be given having regard to the conditions in Class Q2.(1)

[name].1 does not permit development under Class Q if (a) the site was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit – (i) on 20th March 2013, or (ii) in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use, or (iii) in the case of a site which was brought into use after 20th March 2013, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins. ‘Established agricultural unit’ for the purposes of Class Q means, agricultural land occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture, on or before 20th March 2013 or for 10 years before the date the development begins.

The building was constructed at some point prior to 2015, and the Council states that aerial photography shows that it was in place since at least 2010. It was constructed under the ownership of [name], who had a horticultural business, and they received a grant for growing nursery stock for this purpose from 2001. The business was scaled down during 2015 and ceased in 2016. The grant was terminated in 2018; the same year that the Taylors’ son, inherited [address] Farm. A statutory declaration from his brother states that the building was used for horticulture during the above period.

Interested parties assert that the building was never used for agriculture and instead was used for storing classic cars and in association with a Leisure Caravan Park. However, as part of the 2019 Prior Approval1, based on a site visit and the information that was before them at the time, the Council concluded that the building was agricultural and met the permitted development parameters. The Council has also confirmed as part of this appeal, that this remains their stance. Accordingly, and in the absence of robust evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the site was used for agriculture on 20th March 2013 and up to the determination of the 2019 [name] (14th January 2020). The appellant therefore contends that there is no need to go on to consider other time limiting factors of the legislation. 1 19/00958/COUQ

Nevertheless, the building must, by definition, be an agricultural building in order to benefit from Class Q. In other words, the use must not have changed from agriculture to another between 20th March 2013, and the time that the application (or appeal) is considered. An ‘agricultural building’ is defined within the GPDO 2020 as a building (excluding a dwellinghouse) used for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business; and ‘agricultural use’ refers to such uses.

The aforementioned statutory declaration goes on to state that the building was largely empty from 2018, albeit briefly used for the temporary storage of items from the writer’s caravan and other businesses. It was then sold to the appellant in November 2020.

The appellant’s own statutory declaration, states that the building is used to house equipment associated with a small holding2 and a felling licence3, by a local farmer to store hay, and for ad-hoc domestic storage. It states that the predominant use of the building has continued to be for agriculture.

Ordinarily, such statements would be taken at face value. However, where they are disputed, it is necessary to test these against the available evidence.

I have seen several photographs of the interior of the building, dating between 2019 and March 20254. Items stored within it are variously, household items, single-person vehicles, paints, boxes and a loose collection of wood items such as timber, a door and panels. The Council photograph dated 5th March 2025, shows a quad bike, ride-on mower and a loose scattering of straw on the building floor within part of the building. The Council also advises that a small pen housing a sow and piglets was also present. From the photographs, this appears to have been a small area of the appeal building. During my site visit I saw within one part of the building, a mower and two quad bikes, one of which was carrying some hay, and tools, implements, ladders, logs and timber offcuts in the remainder of the building.

Overall, the photographs give a mixed picture of the building’s usage over time. Whilst they do not conclusively show the use to which the building has been put, it is far from persuasive that its use has been agricultural. Whilst the presence of some things may be associated with agriculture, such as the quad bikes and animals, they may equally be used for land management and hobby farming.

An interested party asserts that a business, ‘Van Venture Ltd,’ used the building between January 2021 to January 2023, and that it was concerned with converting vans to motorhomes and a spray shop. This is supported by an undated photograph with ‘[name] signage, both inside and outside of the building, alongside two campervan type vehicles. One of these was parked inside the building. A further photograph shows a group of commercial vehicles (white vans and a small flatbed truck), adjacent to the building. The date ascribed to it is 11th January 2023. My attention has also been drawn to a glamping/camping use of the wider land within the blue edge of the site location plan, beyond the confines of the building. I saw evidence of this on my site visit in the form of signage, and 2 Ref. 21/163/0279 3 Ref. 010/3167/2021 4 Council Statement of Case, appendix 1. associated structures. This indicates that at least some of the land is not being used for agriculture.

Taking all of the above factors together, this is a strong indication that the appeal building has had a non-agricultural use from 2020.

The appellant’s stance is that site visit observations and interested party comments are not evidence of a lawful use of the building. Also that signage alone does not show an active commercial use, as evidence of fitting out or operational activities has not been presented.

Even so, the onus of providing evidence of an agricultural enterprise lies with the appellant, and there is nothing before me to robustly counter the evidence I have been presented with. Even with a small holding number and a felling licence there are no details of a farming enterprise or trade, and no details of the extent of the land holding that forms the agricultural unit. There is nothing other than an assertion that a farmer uses the building to store hay, which in any case would be related to a separate land holding. There is also nothing before me to demonstrate that the ‘Van Venture Ltd’ usage could be considered incidental or intermittent, such as records of its occupation of the building.

The appellant also asserts that the lack of enforcement action on the land is evidence that no change of use has taken place and has referenced Policy SP4 of the Wyre Local Plan5. This policy refers to the Council’s hierarchical approach to the re-use of buildings in the countryside. Nevertheless, enforcement action is discretionary and is not an indication of the lawful use of land or buildings. That can only be established by a certificate of lawfulness. It is open to the appellant to apply to have such matters determined under sections 191 or 192 of the Act. Any such matters would be unaffected by my determination of this matter.

For the reasons given, on the basis of the available evidence, I am not persuaded that the site meets the parameters of Class Q (a), and Class Q.1, and therefore the proposal is not permitted development.

For a proposal to be permitted development, it must meet all of the relevant limitations, and as I have already found against the proposal on these grounds, it cannot be permitted. This is irrespective of the matter in dispute over curtilage. Similarly, there is no need for me to consider whether the proposed building operations would be reasonably necessary, or assess the prior approval matters, including the flooding risks on the site.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.