Appeal 6002922

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a proposed new agricultural barn at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/1388/FMIN and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have used the address on the appeal form in my banner heading above as this more accurately describes the site’s location.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to relevant development plan policies for development in the countryside; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to agricultural land to the north-west of [address], off [site address] . There is no dispute between the parties that the site lies outside of any defined settlement boundary, within the countryside. Amongst other things, Policy EC04 of the Breckland Local Plan (2023) (BLP) states that proposals for employment uses outside of the identified General Employment Areas will be permitted where there are particular reasons for the development not being located on an established or allocated employment site including businesses that are based on agriculture, forestry or other industry where there are sustainability advantages to being located in close proximity to the market they serve (paragraph b.2). The supporting text to this policy explains that the expansion of existing rural businesses, new businesses which are either related to rural activities (such as agriculture) or where there are clear sustainability advantages for businesses being located close to the market they serve, will generally be supported.

The evidence indicates that the appeal site forms part of a 4.6-acre agricultural field which is part of an agricultural smallholding used for activities such as grazing and haymaking. The appeal scheme proposes the erection of an agricultural barn to support the appellant’s agricultural operations including hay production, livestock care, storage of machinery and equipment, and other land management activities. It is understood that the need for a storage building has arisen due to a change in ownership of [site address] Farm nearby, where the appellant previously had access to a storage barn. The proposed barn would be used for the storage of hay bales, haymaking equipment and general agricultural and land management machinery.

The Council contends that, compared with the size of the holding it would serve, insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate a functional need for a storage building of this size, in this location. However, I have not been directed to any local or national policy which requires a functional need to be demonstrated for agricultural buildings. Nevertheless, the appellant has provided additional information relating to their storage requirements, including the machinery required to be housed in the building and the extent of floor area this would utilise to demonstrate that the building is proportionate to the storage needs of the holding. The agricultural need for a building of this scale has been clearly articulated, and this additional evidence has not been disputed by the Council.

The appellant contends that a building is required on the appeal site to avoid transporting equipment and materials to be used on the appeal site and adjacent land from an alternative storage building elsewhere. This would prevent unnecessary additional vehicle movements on the highway network and thus, unsustainable travel. Based on the evidence before me, including the nature of the use of the smallholding, the appellant’s storage requirements and relationship of the building with the land it would serve, I am satisfied that the building would be functionally linked to the appeal site and the ability to store equipment and machinery on the holding would clearly provide sustainability advantages in this particular case. The Council has not provided any compelling evidence to the contrary. The appellant has therefore demonstrated that there is a particular reason for this development not being located on an established or allocated employment site in accordance with the requirements of paragraph b.2. of Policy EC04.

Concerns have been raised in relation to the permanent loss of undeveloped agricultural grassland. However, while paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) encourages the use of previously developed land, I have not been pointed to any policy which prohibits the use of agricultural land or grassland for agricultural developments.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude the development would be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to relevant development plan policies for development in the countryside. This accords with Policy EC04 of the BLP, the requirements of which are described above, as well as complying with paragraph 88 of the Framework which states that planning decisions should enable the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

The appeal site is located on a stretch of [site address] where nearby development comprises sporadic dwellings and buildings set in mainly open countryside. As the area has a relatively dispersed settlement pattern, with developments set along relatively narrow, enclosed lanes and separated by intervening farmland, it has a distinctly rural character and appearance. The appeal site relates to part of a larger undeveloped grass field to the north-east of [address]. The existing access in the south-west corner allows views into the site to be achieved from the highway. However, otherwise, due to a combination of the changing topography, relatively narrow roads and existing trees and hedgerows around the boundaries, longer range views into the site are relatively limited.

Despite its relatively large footprint, the overall height of the proposed storage building would be relatively modest compared to modern agricultural buildings and the development would have a functional form and appearance that is reflective of agricultural buildings commonly found in the countryside and surrounding area. The scale of ancillary works to extend the access track and provide hardstanding to the front of the building would be relatively small scale when compared to the size of the wider field. As no alterations are proposed to the existing access or boundary hedgerows, the extent of surfacing works would not result in an overengineered appearance from the public realm and would likely be screened from longer range views.

Whilst the building would not be positioned next to [address], it would be located relatively close to the existing cluster of development to the west of the appeal site and would be set back from the highway to reduce its prominence. The building would also be partially screened by established vegetation along the highway boundary and around the perimeter of the wider field, which is likely to provide effective screening in longer range views across the surrounding countryside. Together, this would help visually contain the building, reduce its visible bulk, minimise its prominence and enable it to assimilate into the rural landscape.

Whilst views of the building may be achievable from certain vantage points in the surrounding landscape, it would be read as an agricultural building within a wider agricultural setting, commensurate with its use and the surrounding context. Accordingly, it would not be unduly prominent or incongruous and even when considered along with the associated ancillary surfacing works, would integrate sensitively with its rural surroundings and preserve the character of the surrounding countryside. This aligns with the overarching objectives of the [name] (2024).

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude the development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. This accords with Policies GEN02, COM01 and ENV05 of the BLP insofar as they seek to ensure high quality design that respects and is sensitive to the distinctive character and amenity of the surrounding area and recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The development also accords with the provisions of Chapter 12 of the Framework which support well-designed places.

The Council has suggested several conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions to improve precision and enforceability.

In addition to the standard three-year time limit condition for implementation, a condition that defines the approved plans is imposed in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring compliance with the stated materials details is also imposed to preserve the character and appearance of the area. I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of the access track and hardstanding to the front of the barn, in the interest of highway safety. Due to the nature of the agricultural use, a condition requiring the reporting and remediation of any unexpected contamination is attached to ensure the health and safety of site users. I have also imposed a condition requiring the submission of a biodiversity enhancement strategy in the interest of minimising impacts on biodiversity and to support protected and priority species.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring the submission of a surface water disposal scheme to minimise the possibilities of flooding from the development. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that the site is within an area that is prone to surface water flooding or that disposing of surface water via a soakaway as proposed would be ineffective. Accordingly, the Council has not demonstrated why this condition would be necessary and I have not imposed it.

I have not imposed the suggested condition restricting the use of the building or requiring the building to be incidental to the use of the main dwelling either. The appeal scheme is for an agricultural storage building and its use for any other purpose is implicitly restricted by the description of the development. A condition to this effect is therefore unnecessary. The Council has also suggested restricting the use of the barn to the Appellant. However, there is no substantive justification for this based on the evidence before me and therefore it would not be reasonable in this case.

It is also put to me that permitted development rights should be restricted to prevent the installation of any means of obstruction to the access. The Framework advises that conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. However, no alterations are proposed to the existing access as part of this appeal. I have not been presented with any compelling evidence that the site circumstances are such to justify the removal of these permitted development rights or that material harm would arise to highway safety in the absence of this condition over and above the existing situation either. Therefore, this condition has not been imposed.

A condition is suggested to secure a [name] and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) in association with an approved Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP). However, where [name] (BNG) is applicable, the general biodiversity gain condition is deemed to apply to every planning permission granted. The condition is that the development may not be begun unless a BGP has been submitted to the planning authority and they have approved the plan. BNG applies to the proposed development and there are separate provisions governing the BGP, which can require the provision of a HMMP where significant on-site enhancements are to be provided, which should not be duplicated by planning conditions. As such, I have not attached this suggested condition either.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme accords with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos ‘Location Plan’ dated 15.10.2025, ‘Block Plan’ ref. 25/31/01B [name]. 2025 and ‘Plans and Elevations’ ref. 25/31/02.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the materials shown on drawing no. 25/31/02.

Prior to any works above ground level, a [name] for protected, priority and threatened species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Strategy shall include: a) the purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement measures; b) detailed designs or product descriptions to achieve the stated objectives; c) locations of the proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and plans (where relevant); d) persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures; and e) details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted the proposed access track and parking/turning areas shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and these areas shall thereafter be kept available at all times for these purposes.

Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. ** END OF SCHEDULE **