Appeal 6002189

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, (the GPDO) for a new general purpose agricultural building at [site address] , Adlington [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/1630/PRIOR-6 and the details submitted with it.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A (Class A) of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for agricultural development on units of 5 hectares or more, subject to limitations and conditions. Class A of the GPDO specifies this includes the erection of a building which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.

[name].2 of Class A of the GPDO specifies that before erecting a building the developer must apply 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, amongst other matters.

The Council found the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed building to be acceptable. Notwithstanding this, the Council concluded that the proposed development would not comprise development permitted by Class A of the GPDO as it is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. Accordingly, the main issue is whether the proposed development is reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes within the unit.

Schedule 2, Part 6, Class D of the GPDO provides interpretations for phrases within Class A of the GPDO. Although it specifies what the phrase “reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture” includes, it does not provide a definition. Taking the plain English definitions of ‘reasonably’ and ‘necessary’, I consider there must be a justified agricultural need for a proposed development for it to fall within the scope of Class A of the GPDO.

The Council acknowledge that there is a need for new infrastructure to support the existing agricultural activity. However, consent was granted under a previous prior approval application1 for 2 agricultural buildings within the unit in proximity to the proposed development. The conditions in Class A of the GPDO specify that a consent must be carried out within a period of 5 years from the date on which the local planning authority received the application. The previous consent has not been implemented but is capable of being implemented up to 2027. The Council consider that 3 sheds, comprising the 2 sheds previously consented and the proposed building, would not be commensurate to the scale of the operation described by the appellant. Therefore, the Council concluded that the proposed development is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

The Council correctly identify that an application made for prior approval under the GPDO is restricted to the matters specified within the GPDO and this includes compliance with the relevant class. There is no restriction within Class A of the GPDO as to what a decision maker may consider when assessing whether a proposal is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. The Council considered several factors when making this assessment. There is no restriction within statute which would stop a planning obligation from also being a material consideration when assessing whether a proposal is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCPA) concerns planning obligations. It specifies that any person interested in land may enter into an obligation restricting the development or use of the land in any specified way. It also states that an obligation shall be a local land charge. Whilst planning obligations secured pursuant to s106 of the TCPA tend to be related to planning applications, an obligation can be entered independent of a planning application. This is confirmed in the Norfolk Homes Limited judgment2. Accordingly, a planning obligation could be entered into separately from the application for prior approval and restrict a development consented by a previous prior approval application or permitted by the GPDO.

The submitted [name] (UU) has been completed independently of the application for prior approval. It seeks to ensure that in the event that works relating to either the previously consented development or the proposed development is commenced, the other development could not be constructed. Upon review I can confirm that the UU is effective and legally sound. I can also confirm that during my site visit I observed that the development of the previously consented buildings has not been commenced. Consequently, if works commenced on the proposed development, works on the previously consented development could not be commenced without being contrary to the UU.

The Council has not commented on whether the proposed building by itself would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture but accepts there is a need for new infrastructure. Without evidence to the contrary, I cannot conclude that the proposed building would not be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. 1 Prior approval application Ref. 22/1515M 2 Norfolk Homes Limited vs North Norfolk District Council [2020], EWHC 2265 (QB)

Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that the proposed development is reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes within the unit. The GPDO does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions beyond the deemed conditions specified in Class A of the GPDO. Moreover, no further conditions are necessary.

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