Appeal 6001245

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of their appeal, the appellant provided additional information pertaining to the necessity of the proposed agricultural barn. The Council and interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on this information as part of the appeal process, and I have taken their comments into consideration in my reasoning.

Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order) relates to development that can be undertaken within an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more and allows for the erection of a building reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit. There is no dispute that the unit exceeds this size threshold.

Thus, the main issue is whether or not it has been demonstrated that the proposal would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and would therefore be permitted development.

The evidence submitted, including that from interested parties, indicates that the agricultural unit has been used for hay production for some years. Additionally, as I observed during my site visit, the unit is used for the keeping of goats and sheep. Evidence from the appellant also indicates an intention to diversify the unit with fruit and nut trees. The proposed barn would be used to store hay and farm equipment. There are no other agricultural barns currently within the unit.

The ‘reasonably necessary’ assessment does not carry with it any connotation of profit or business viability. The Order requires only that the land is used for the purposes of an agricultural trade or business. Receipts showing the sale of hay and livestock in 2024 suggests that this requirement is met.

The proposed barn is described as being 10.9 metres in length and 9.2 metres in width, with an overall height of 4.7 metres. It is stated that [address] metres of floorspace would be required to store approximately 200 hay bales, a further [address] metres of floor space to accommodate maintenance and tool storage with the remainder housing two tractors, mowers, fencing equipment and other general agricultural machinery.

Based on the information submitted, a barn to store hay and agricultural machinery to support a more efficient and viable agricultural business would be reasonable. However, there is little before me to demonstrate the amount of hay which is produced annually at the unit. The appellant’s Business Plan 2024 refers to a predicted yield of 24 ton. However, there is nothing to demonstrate that this converts to 200 hay bales or that [address] metres floorspace is reasonably necessary to accommodate the predicted yield. Furthermore, there is no information regarding the size of the machinery and equipment which would also be stored.

Whilst the test is not one of ‘absolute’ necessity, the onus is upon the appellant to demonstrate how the proposal is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. The evidence presented falls short of convincing me on this point.

Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the requirements applicable to Part 6 of the Order have been met. As such, the proposal could not be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Order.

For the reasons given above I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.