Appeal 6002019

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 new barn at [site address] in accordance with the application 25/00911/AGRIC and the details and plans submitted with it.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the erection, extension or alteration of a building which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, subject to limitations and conditions. [name].2.(2)(i) to Part 6 requires the developer to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval would be required as to various matters, including the siting, design and external appearance of the building. The Council refused the application for prior approval solely on the basis of the siting of the building.

The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted having particular regard to the siting of the building.

The appeal site consists of a strip of land between [site address] and a reservoir. Trees and hedgerows bound the site to the north and west. The surrounding area is predominantly rural in nature, with large fields of agricultural land and scattered trees belts and ponds. The main cluster of buildings at [site address] lie a short distance to the south of the site and are connected to the site by a track. Another cluster of buildings and a historic radar station lie a short distance to the north.

The proposed barn would be located towards the north of the site, adjacent to the mature trees and hedging to the north and west and the raised banks of the reservoir to the east. This siting is such that the barn would be partly screened in many views.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been submitted by the appellant which relates to the maintenance of the boundary hedgerow along [site address] . I find the obligation in the UU to be necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. I have therefore relied upon it when making my judgement about siting.

While the barn would be visible from [site address] , that does not necessarily mean it results in harm. Even at the proposed scale, the mature trees and hedging would soften and partially screen the barn throughout the year, albeit to varying degrees depending on seasonal foliage. The UU would see the hedgerow along [site address] grow to and be maintained at a height of 4 metres. This would further enhance the screening along [site address] and would help to prevent the barn from appearing unduly prominent or incongruous.

While the barn would be separate from the main cluster of buildings at [site address] , it would be linked to an agricultural use and its functional design would reflect its intended agricultural purpose. Such a building is not unusual within a rural landscape and would not be out of place in the specific context of the appeal site. Accordingly, its siting away from the other buildings and its visibility from [site address] do not, in themselves, render the barn inappropriate in this context. The barn would not appear visually intrusive or excessively conspicuous and, as such, its siting would not cause harm to the rural landscape and its open character.

The Council refers to Policy PPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 2, which seeks to protect the rural landscape and prevent development which would cause overriding harm to its character or appearance. Reference is also made to paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. Part 6, Schedule 2 of the GPDO, unlike other parts, does not expressly refer to the Framework. Moreover, the principle of development is established by the GPDO, and there is no requirement to determine a prior approval appeal in accordance with development plan policy. Therefore, I have had regard to the highlighted local and national planning policy insofar as is relevant to my consideration of the matter of siting. In both cases, for the reasons previously stated I find the proposed siting would accord with them.

The Council has suggested a series of conditions. However, unlike other Parts of the GPDO, Class A, Part 6 does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions in [name].2(2)(v) and (vi). These specify that the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details submitted with the application and within 5 years of the date of this approval. There is no need to restate them in my decision.

It would not be necessary for a condition stating that the development must not begin before the receipt by the applicant of this Decision Letter, as prior approval would not be granted until this Letter is issued and, furthermore, as prior approval cannot be granted for a development which has commenced.

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