Appeal 6002490

The appeal is dismissed.

There is no description of development given on the application form. I have taken the description in the heading above from the appeal form, which is the same as the decision notice.

Based on the submissions provided, the dispute in this case centres around the size of the agricultural unit and whether the scale of the proposal is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit. Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order).

In order to be permitted development under Part 6, Class A of the Order it is necessary that the development is carried out on agricultural land comprised of an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more. Clarification of the interpretation of Class A is provided at paragraph D.1.(1) to Part 6. This states that ‘agricultural land’ means land which, before development permitted by this Part is carried out, is land in use for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business.

The submitted plans identify four parcels of land, which the appellant contends together form an agricultural unit of over 6 hectares. The largest parcel is labelled as 4.5 hectares on the plans, although the appellant’s Statement of Case describes it as 4.52 hectares. This area comprises grassland, which the submitted evidence states is used for hay production. A receipt showing the sale of hay in 2025 indicates that this land is used for the purposes of trade or business.

Adjacent to this parcel of land, is the appellant’s dwelling and its garden which covers 0.48 hectares. [name].1(1) of the Order allows for the inclusion of any dwelling with its garden occupied for the purposes of farming by the person who occupies the unit.

The other two parcels of land are located a short distance away and are identified as being 0.753 hectares and 0.358 hectares respectively. During my site visit I saw that these parcels both have dense tree cover. The appellant states that they intend to use these areas for rearing specialist pigs, and an Agricultural Management Plan has been submitted setting out the anticipated timescales for this. Whilst it is stated that preparation of the land has begun, there is little evidence before me that these parcels of land are in use for agriculture for the purposes of a trade or business. As such, I am not satisfied that these two parcels of land meet the Order’s definition of ‘agricultural land’, as set out above.

Notwithstanding my findings on those two parcels of land, if I take the grassland to be 4.52 along with 0.48 hectares for the adjoining residential property, this would represent an agricultural unit of 5 hectares. I therefore turn to whether the proposed development is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

The proposal includes an open sided hay barn which is described as being 20 metres wide, 9 metres deep and with an overall height of 3 metres. In addition, a storage barn for agricultural machinery and equipment is proposed. This is described as being 30 metres wide, 9 metres deep and also has an overall height of 3 metres. The proposed track would provide vehicular access from [site address] to the proposed barns.

Based on the information submitted, barns to store hay and agricultural machinery to support a more efficient and viable agricultural business would be reasonable. The appellant states that 21 large bales of hay were harvested during July 2025. However, there is no detail provided regarding the amount of space that would be necessary to accommodate that 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 satisfying 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, on the cases put to me, the proposal is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Order.

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