Appeal 6003211

The appeal is dismissed.

The address above is taken from the appeal form as it more accurately describes the location of the appeal site than the details provided on the application form. It is consistent with the address used by the Council in its decision notice.

Within their appeal submission, the appellant provided additional information relating to the agricultural unit and the need for the proposed building. While this information elaborates on the details submitted to the Council as part of the application, it is entirely consistent with those details. The main parties have been given the opportunity to provide comments on this information. I have had regard to the comments received and have considered the proposal in light of the submitted information.

Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GDPO) permits the carrying out on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more in area of works for the erection, extension of alteration of a building which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.

[name].1 and A.2 of Class A set out a number of technical limitations and restrictions. The Council considers that the proposal would comply with these limitations and restrictions. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree with this finding. However, the Council argues that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

[name].2(2)(i) specifies that before beginning the development an application must be made 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. The Council does not raise concerns in respect of the external appearance of the proposed building.

The Council raises concerns about the effect of the proposal on protected species and priority habitats. However, matters relating to impacts on protected species and habitats cannot be considered in relation to prior approval applications unless nature conservation is expressly referred to in the relevant Class in the GDPO. As nature conservation is not a specified matter in Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A, I have not considered this matter any further.

Accordingly, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be permitted development under Class A; and • if so, whether the siting and design of the proposed development are such that prior approval should be granted.

The appeal site is a parcel of land in excess of 1 hectare comprising grassland abutted by woodland. The application form specifies that the land forms part of an agricultural unit totalling 166 hectares, 40 hectares of which are located at [name]. While the application form does not specify how long the agricultural unit has operated, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the land does not form part of an operational agricultural unit.

Class A does not impose a requirement to demonstrate an absolute necessity for development, only that it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. The application form outlines that the building is needed for the storage of hay, straw and machinery between land farmed at [name] and [address]. The information before me illustrates the relationship between the appeal site and this land and details the operations of the agricultural unit, as well as how the proposed building would support its ongoing operation. On the basis of this information, I consider that an operational need for the building sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Class A has been demonstrated.

Accordingly, I conclude that the requirements of Class A are met.

The woodland present on and adjacent to the appeal site is classified as ancient woodland. Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Paragraph 193 of the Framework specifies that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons.

The information before me does not consider the implications of the siting of the proposed development on the ancient woodland. Moreover, although the appellant suggests that the building would be a simple barn with small footings, no construction specifics have been provided to demonstrate that the implications of its design and construction on the ancient woodland have been taken into account. Consequently, irrespective of the management of the woodland in an environmentally sensitive manner and replanting of some areas with hardwoods, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in the deterioration of the ancient woodland.

The site lies within [name] 2 and 3. Paragraph 078 of the Planning Practice Guidance sets out that in these [name] there is, respectively, a medium and high probability of river flooding. The Framework specifies at paragraph 181 that development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where it can be demonstrated that, among other things, the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient. Notwithstanding the distance between the appeal site and the nearby lake and [name], it has not been demonstrated through appropriate evidence, such as a flood risk assessment, that the siting and design of the proposal is informed by, and would appropriately manage, the risk of flooding.

The appeal site is located within the High Weald National Landscape. The statutory purposes of National Landscapes are to conserve and enhance their natural beauty. The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 amends the duty on relevant authorities in respect of their functions to now ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes.

Although the proposed development would introduce new built form into the National Landscape, isolated from existing built form, the existing woodland would provide some screening, further enhanced by new hedging being established along the roadside. In this regard, the siting of the proposed building would be such that it would not appear unduly prominent in the landscape. Moreover, it would be broadly akin to some examples of existing buildings in the National Landscape that I observed during my site visit and, therefore, not appear incongruous. In this context, I am satisfied that the proposal would conserve the natural beauty of the National Landscape, in accordance with the statutory purposes.

Taking all of the above into account, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the proposed building would not, due to its siting and design, result in harm to ancient woodland. It has also not been demonstrated that the proposal would appropriately manage flood risk. For these reasons, on the basis of the information before me, and in taking a precautionary approach, prior approval should not be granted.

The appellant indicates that they would work with the Council to allay its concerns regarding the siting and design of the proposed development. Nevertheless, I have assessed the appeal on the basis of the plans and information before me, as I am required to do. This matter does not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion on the second main issue.

The registration of the farm as an organic farm and management of the fields under a Country Stewardship agreement with the Department for Environment, Food and [name] are outwith the matters for my determination.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.