Appeal 6001852

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) set out that on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more, the erection of a building reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit is permitted development, subject to limitations and

In this case, the Council’s decision notice refers to the proposed development not being carried out on land comprised within an agricultural unit.

The main issue is whether or not the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, with particular regard to whether the appeal site is land comprised within an agricultural unit.

‘Agricultural unit’ for the purposes of Class A is defined within Schedule 2, Part 6, D.1(1) as agricultural land which is occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture. The definition of ‘agriculture’ within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) includes the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land) and the use of land as grazing land.

The proposed building would be adjacent to a stable block with the planning history indicating that part of the appeal site is used as livery stables. Further, the appellant states that prior to acquiring [site address] , it was solely a livery yard. ‘The breeding and keeping of livestock’ as an agricultural use does not include the breeding and keeping of horses, where the ‘keeping of horses’ involves activities (such as leisure riding) other than putting them out to graze.

The appeal site includes a livery which does not meet the above definition of agriculture. Therefore, the land is not occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture and would not form an ‘agricultural unit’ for the purposes of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

During my site visit I observed a number of items of what appeared to be agricultural equipment primarily stored externally throughout the appeal site. I additionally note the appellants intention to expand and operate part of the appeal site as a working farm with the proposed building used to store farm machinery and equipment, as well as hay and livestock feed. [name] have no reason to doubt the appellant’s intentions, this does not overcome the above identified conflict with Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

Accordingly, it has not been shown that the appeal site is land comprised in an agricultural unit. As such, the proposed development does not fall within the scope of Schedule 2, Class A, Part 6 of the GPDO and does not constitute permitted development.

In light of the above, it follows that I do not need to make any determination on the prior approval matters.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.