Appeal 6003359

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an open sided covered canopy for agricultural purposes at [name], [site address] , Stourton, Staffordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00605/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Block Plan, Location Plan and drawing number 24/057-1d.

The development hereby approved shall be used only for agricultural purposes including the cleaning, preparation, sorting and storage of produce harvested at the site.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies, including its effects on the openness of the Green Belt.

The site lies within the West Midlands Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Framework paragraph 153 makes clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 154 sets out categories of development that are not inappropriate. Under paragraph 154(a), one such category is for buildings for agriculture and forestry.

Policy GB1 of the [name], adopted December 2012, relates to the Green Belt. Relevant to this appeal, it makes clear that development acceptable within the Framework for purposes directly related to agriculture or forestry will normally be permitted. As such, policy GB1 is consistent with the Framework and so carries full weight.

The site consists of a smallholding planted as an orchard of fruit trees. It has an existing brick-built storage building which includes a welfare room with a kitchen. There is an additional level patio area enclosed by walls and hedging. On site a canopy has already been erected. However, the proposal before me is for a canopy of reduced length compared to the as-built situation.

An earlier proposed canopy was dismissed on appeal1. The previous Inspector had concerns about the absence of details of the volume, nature and extent of the agricultural work, whether the canopy would be required for these purposes, and why the existing building could not be used. I have considered the new proposal based on the evidence before me. The smallholding is used to produce a range of fruit. The Council has questioned whether some of the types of fruit referred to by the appellant are grown here, though they have only a relatively short harvest period each year. In any case, there is no dispute that apples are harvested on site.

I understand that some of the fruit harvested is for self-consumption, but most is supplied to others, including local residents and a shop in Kinver village. Around a third of the apple harvest is juiced and sent for bottling and pasteurising. The rest is pressed for cider-making. This results in appreciable numbers of bottles of apple juice and cider.

The storage building includes items such as scaffolding, planks and ladders, said by the appellant to be necessary for working at height. It also contains a cement mixer and log storage, as well as a range of mowers, cutters and other tools for managing the site and its vegetation. Even if not all these items are agricultural, some of them are justified, and limit the space available for handling fruit. Given this, and the fully enclosed nature of the brick storage building, it seems to me that an additional covered but open area is reasonably necessary for the cleaning, preparing, sorting and storing of harvested produce.

The Council accepts that a modest area may be acceptable to support the agricultural operation. The canopy would be lower than the existing building and would not cover the whole patio area. Consequently, given its relatively small size, I consider that the proposal would be modest, and no more than is required. For these reasons it would constitute development for agriculture, complying with Framework Paragraph 154(a).

In making an exception for agricultural buildings, the Framework implicitly accepts the effect of such development on Green Belt openness. In light of my conclusion above, there is no requirement for me to further assess the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.

For the reasons already given, I find that the proposal does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the relevant Development Plan policy, including its effect on the openness of the 1 PINS reference APP/C3430/W/24/3356390 Green Belt. It would thus similarly accord with Policy GB1 of the [name]. The Council’s Green Belt and Open Countryside Supplementary Planning Document, dated April 2014, makes no additional requirements relevant to the proposal and so I find no conflict with it.

The proposal would be constructed of timber clad supports and metal sheet roofing. As such, although visible from the adjacent road and a footpath, its appearance would be broadly consistent with modern agricultural structures, and would be seen in the context of the existing building. On this basis, it would not harm the character or appearance of the area. The structural safety of the canopy, for example during storms, is a matter for the Building Regulations. Concerns regarding other development built here, such as the gravelled areas, are beyond the scope of my considerations. I have no substantive evidence to suggest that drainage is an issue.

The Council has provided a list of conditions, which I have assessed and where necessary amended, having regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition requiring adherence to the approved plans is necessary for certainty.

The Green Belt justification for the proposal is based on its agricultural use and so it needs to be restricted to this. The Council has suggested limiting the use of the building to storage and for purposes associated with growing and cultivating fruit. However, provided it is used for agriculture then it would comply with the requirements of planning policy. In the interests of clarity, I have specified that the canopy shall be used only for agricultural purposes including the cleaning, preparation, sorting and storage of produce harvested at the site.

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