Appeal 6003634

The appeal is dismissed.

The GPDO was amended on 21 May 20241. However, the amendments to Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO are subject to transitional arrangements. These include that a developer may make an application for a determination as to prior approval in relation to previously permitted development under Class Q until the end of 20th May 2025. These transitional arrangements are applicable to this appeal. This appeal has therefore been determined on the basis of the GPDO as it was at 1 August 2020.

The Council refused the application on the basis that the proposed development would fail to meet the requirements of paragraph Q.1(g) and (h) of Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The Council also refused the application under paragraph Q.2(1)(b) and (e) of Class Q, which requires the Council to assess the noise impacts of the proposed development, and whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from an agricultural use to use as a dwellinghouse. However, these matters under paragraph Q.2(1)(b) and (e) of Class Q only fall to be considered if the proposed development would constitute permitted development, which I address in the main issue below. 1 Via the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024

At the appeal stage, the Council confirmed that its concerns in relation to paragraph Q.1(h) of Class Q could be addressed by a condition requiring retention and use of the existing frame in the proposed dwelling. As the question of the proposed development’s compliance with paragraph Q.1(h) is no longer a matter of dispute between the main parties I have not considered this matter further.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is not the purpose of this appeal decision to provide a formal determination as to the exact extent of any established agricultural unit / planning unit at any particular point in time. Rather, this appeal decision solely relates to whether the proposed development would comply with the requirements of the GPDO.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, having particular regard to whether development under Class A(a) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO has been carried out on the established agricultural unit within the relevant period.

The appeal site comprises a large early 21st century barn (the appeal barn), an area of hardstanding in front of that barn, an accessway connecting the site to [address], and a small part of a much larger field which surrounds the barn. Another barn, of mid-20th century origin (the 1955 barn), is present directly adjacent to the appeal site, to the north-west of the appeal barn.

The Council contends that development under Class A(a) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO has been carried out on the established agricultural unit during the period which is 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins. The Council contents that this development is planning application Ref 19/00827/PDET28 (the erection of an agricultural building) (the 2019 application / development).

[name] of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO (Interpretation of Part 3) provides that, amongst other things, “established agricultural unit” means agricultural land occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture for the purposes of Class Q, on or before 20th March 2013 or for 10 years before the date the development begins. As there is no suggestion that either the appeal site or [site address] was brought into use after 20th March 2013, that date is the baseline date for the assessment of the extent of the established agricultural unit. Extent of the established agricultural unit: key evidence

The submitted Design and [name] (DAS) refers to the appeal barn as being located at [site address] , Grafton. The DAS explicitly states that the existing building was erected in 2010 and has been used since for agricultural storage as part of [site address] . More specifically, the DAS mentions that since construction in 2010 the building has been used for the storage of farm produce, the storage of variable farm inputs, and for housing farm machinery. Importantly, the DAS does not mention that the barn has been used for storage for operations not related to [site address] . A plain reading of the DAS would indicate to any reasonable reader that the building which is the subject of this appeal has been used solely in conjunction with [site address] for over 15 years.

The application form for the 2010 application2 relating to the appeal barn stated the site address as [site address] . The application form stated that the area of the proposed agricultural unit was 50 hectares. The location plan submitted with that application includes buildings described as being associated with [site address] , as well as the appeal site, as all being within the boundary of the blue line shown on that plan.

The submitted Validation Checklist Guidance Note (2008) refers to lines drawn in blue as indicating land (other than the application site) being owned or controlled by the applicant. Control over land for the purposes of maintaining an ongoing agricultural use is indicative of the existence of an agricultural unit on that land. Considering this, and as the location plan for the 2010 application does not show any subdivision within that land (in terms of ownership / control) within the blue lines, a natural reading of that plan is that all of the land within the blue line constitutes [site address] .

Furthermore, the planning statement submitted with the 2010 planning application states that the statement relates to [site address] . It states that the application is for a general purpose building with the intention to store farm produce, variable farm products, and farm machinery. The planning statement also stated that, “... At present my farm lacks this type of modern facility...”. The planning statement elaborates that the business related to the barn was solely connected to agriculture with an annual turnover in excess of £200K. These statements show that the appeal barn was intended to be used in conjunction with [site address] .

The mention of, “... The business related to this proposal...”, in the planning statement, written on letterhead giving the name and address of [site address] , indicates that the business referred to was [site address] . Nowhere in these documents does it say that the barn was intended to be used in conjunction with a different / separate agricultural enterprise. There is no indication in the application form for the 2010 application that the ‘machinery for agriculture’ referred to in that form would only be restricted to a specific part of the 50 hectares mentioned above.

It follows that a plain reading of all these documents comprising the 2010 application would indicate to any reasonable reader that [site address] constitutes the area of land shown within the blue lines on the location plan, that the building which is now the subject of this appeal was intended to form part of that same farm, and that the agricultural enterprise intended to benefit from the proposed barn was known as [site address] .

The application form for the 2013 application3 for the erection of an agricultural building stated the site address as [site address] . The form stated that the area of the proposed agricultural unit was 72 hectares. This is consistent with the area 2 10/0546/P/AGD 3 13/0546/P/AGD shown on the plan showing the total size of the holding. That plan is titled [site address] . The plan explains that the blue line represents the boundaries of the holding. The blue line shown on that plan includes both the appeal site and buildings described as being associated with [site address] . This corroborates the indication in the 2010 application (referred to above), that these buildings and the site were in the same agricultural unit.

The supporting statement submitted with the 2013 application explains that the farm has recently purchased an additional 50 acres of adjoining bare land, and that the business at present is expanding.

The appellant has provided copies of [name] title documents. These include the title register and the title plan for title number ON232218, which encompasses the appeal site and the remainder of the large field which surrounds the site. The title register has been provided for title number ON230820, but the associated title plan has not been submitted. However, as the title register for title number ON230820 relates to [site address] , it likely includes the buildings to the north-west of the site referred to in the above-mentioned applications as belonging to [site address] , and also an area of land around those buildings.

Copies of Rural Payments Agency records have been provided which show a historic individual holding number for the title number ON232218. Records relating to the operations of TotalFarm Limited have also been provided.

The appellant has asserted that the Rural Payments Agency documents supplied denote formal government recognition that a particular land parcel has operated as a distinct agricultural unit. However, the Rural Payments Agency documents supplied with this appeal do not state this. Indeed, I note that the terms ‘agricultural unit’ and ‘established agricultural unit’ do not appear anywhere in these documents. Importantly, they do not state that they are intended to confirm the extent of an established agricultural unit for the purposes of the GPDO.

These documents do confirm the existence of a separate land parcel for the purposes of government administration, and the business / beneficiary associated with that parcel. However, an established agricultural unit may comprise multiple parcels of land. As such, the allocation of an individual holding number by the Rural Payments Agency provides little assistance in determining the maximum extent of an established agricultural unit as defined by the GPDO.

All of the above-mentioned applications to the Council were made in the name of [name]. The same person is named as being one of the registered owners of both title number ON232218 and title number ON230820. The business name / beneficiary name shown on the submitted Rural Payments Agency documents is [name], i.e. a member of the same family as [name]. The registered office address of TotalFarm Limited as shown on the [address] records supplied by the Council is [site address] . The submitted tenancy agreement states that [name] is the Director of TotalFarm Limited.

These documents do not demonstrate that the land comprising title number ON232218 has been farmed as a separate agricultural enterprise from that known as [site address] (operated by the Harris family). On the contrary, these documents show very strong links between the owner(s) of [site address] and the farming operations undertaken across the land comprising title number ON232218.

I note that title numbers ON232218 and ON230820 were held in separate ownerships from 7 November 2001 to 15 October 2004. This period is several years before the baseline date referred to above. The title registers indicate that since 15 October 2004 both areas of land have been in joint ownership by the same members of the Harris family. This reinforces the implication from all the evidence referred to above that the land comprising title number ON232218 was part-and-parcel of the existing agricultural unit comprising [site address] .

I have had regard to the aerial photographs and site photographs submitted by the appellant which show the boundaries around the site and the access onto [address]. In this regard, at the site visit I observed that the existing hedgerow to the south-west of the site stops some way short of the position of the 1955 barn, leaving a large gap between the end of that hedgerow and the hedgerow adjoining [address]. This gap is shown on all of the aerial photographs submitted by the appellant dating back to April 2015. The images prior to this date (relating to 2004, 2006, and 2009) are less clear, but they appear to show a complete absence of the hedgerow to the south-west of the site which presently exists.

At the site visit I observed an existing track worn through the grass between the 1955 barn and the hedgerow adjoining [address], which has the appearance of being formed by vehicle movements. The person who granted me access to the site drove a vehicle down this track in order to meet me. I observed that this track stretches for some distance into the field immediately to the west of the appeal site. The aerial photographs submitted by the Council from 2009 show that a pathway existed in the same area between the 1955 barn and the hedgerow adjoining [address], which extended deep into land to the west the appeal site. The photographs submitted by the Council do not show this pathway as being blocked off at any later date.

Consequently, it cannot be said that land comprising title number ON232218 is separately enclosed from any adjoining fields as a matter of fact. Rather, an area of completely open access between that land and land to the west has been in existence since at least 2004. The above-mentioned evidence also suggests that the land comprising title number ON232218 was capable of being farmed in conjunction with the land to the west since the same date.

In any event, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that [address] is incapable of being used to transport agricultural vehicles between the site and the buildings described in the above-mentioned applications as being associated with [site address] . Whether or not this has occurred is unclear from the evidence before me. Nevertheless, taking account of the short distance between the site and these buildings, this factor does not suggest that the site is physically and functionally separate from those buildings.

The Council have asserted that many fields do not have power or water, and that drainage is often specific to a given field. The appellant has not disputed this point, despite such matters being referred to in one of the [name] of Truth. With reference to land comprising title number ON232218, the lack of reliance on land in the remainder of the established agricultural unit for power, water, and drainage does not indicate that land comprising title number ON232218 is not part of the established agricultural unit on or after the baseline date.

It follows that, even taking account of the existence of the covenant mentioned in the title register for title number ON232218 relating to a stock proof fence, the evidence does not indicate that land comprising title number ON232218 has been physically self-contained and separately bounded from other land on or after the baseline date, as suggested in the Statement of Truth (Background to Operation of Planning Unit). Due to the gap mentioned above, which provides for unrestricted access between the land comprising title number ON232218 and the land immediately to the west, the land comprising title number ON232218 is not self-contained, as suggested in the Statement of Truth (Background to Ownership of Planning Unit).

These factors greatly limit the weight given to both of these Statements of Truth. [name] of Truth are not persuasive in their proposition that the land comprising title number ON232218 is not included within the established agricultural unit known as [site address] . Extent of the established agricultural unit: other evidence

The covenant relating to the restriction on the farming and / or breeding of pigs found in the title register for title number ON230820 is not a matter which would stop the appeal barn from being used for storage purposes for the benefit of [site address] (as described in the 2010 application and the DAS). The farming and / or breeding of pigs is but one component of any agricultural enterprise. It has not been shown that, in practice, this restriction has significantly altered the way in which the land comprising title number ON230820 has been managed in comparison land in the remainder of the established agricultural unit.

The use of the land comprising title number ON232218 for security for bank borrowing shows that it is recognised as a unit of land by financial institutions, but this factor alone says little about its status as part of an existing agricultural unit.

The 2003 application referred to by the appellant relates to the erection of a farm workers dwelling and outbuildings. The 2009 application referred to by the appellant relates to the erection of 2-storey and single storey extensions at [site address] . The plans supplied relating to those applications provide some indication of the extent of the planning units relevant to those applications, but (as explained below) a planning unit is not the same concept as an established agricultural unit. Furthermore, it would not be expected that a householder application (the 2009 application) would be required to show the full extent of an established agricultural unit. These applications are of little relevance to the issue in dispute.

It is not the case that, on the date that the Council confirmed that prior approval was required for the 2010 application (13th May 2010), only Class B of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the 1995 GPDO4 (development on units of less than 5 hectare) gave the Council the option of determining that prior approval was required for relevant applications, with this option not existing for relevant applications under Class A of Part 6. Rather, under Class A of Part 6, the relevant provisions of the 1995 GPDO provided for both scenarios (i.e. the Council determining that prior approval was 4 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) required, and the Council determining that prior approval was not required). The fact that the Council confirmed that prior approval was required does not indicate that their determination was made under Class B of Part 6.

Although the decision notice for the 2010 application has not been provided, as the application form mentioned that the area of the proposed agricultural unit was 50 hectares, and Class B of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the 1995 GPDO only provided for the extension or alteration of an agricultural building (and not the erection of an agricultural building), the 2010 application was likely considered under Class A(a) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the 1995 GPDO, which applies to development on units of 5 hectares or more. The Council have confirmed the same.

As none of the [name] have been provided for the 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019 applications, it is unclear why the Council determined that prior approval was required for the 2010 application, but prior approval was not required for all of the others. Nevertheless, neither this factor nor any of the documents included in those applications indicate that the Council treated the land relating to the 2010 application as being contained within a separate agricultural unit from the land considered in these other applications. Extent of the established agricultural unit: summary

The appellant’s Appeal Statement makes numerous references to planning units. It describes [site address] as a separate planning unit independent of the appeal site. The Statements of Truth are also titled (in part), “... Planning Unit”. However, a planning unit is not the same concept as an agricultural unit. Indeed, an agricultural unit may comprise more than one planning unit. This is a vitally important distinction, which the Appeal Statement and the Statements of Truth do not adequately address. The potential existence of a separate planning unit comprising the appeal site or the land comprising title number ON232218 does not alter its status as being part of the established agricultural unit as defined by the GPDO.

Critically, there is no reference to the established agricultural unit having being subdivided into smaller units (in terms of ownership / control) anywhere in the plans / supporting documents for any of the above-mentioned applications. This indicates that no such subdivision was present on or after the baseline date.

I am mindful that paragraph X of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO clarifies that “agricultural building” means a building (excluding a dwellinghouse) used for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business; and “agricultural use” refers to such uses. In this case, the above-mentioned applications refer to the turnover of [site address] . No financial statements relating to any business separate from individuals closely associated with [site address] have been provided. This includes the documentation showing payments to the Rural Payments Agency, which do not appear to relate to an agricultural enterprise separate from that closely associated with the Harris family.

Despite the strong connection found above between the appeal barn and the remainder of the established agricultural unit, the Statements of Truth provide few practical details to explain how title number ON232218 might have been operated / farmed separately or independently from the remainder of the established agricultural unit. Nor have any management plans been submitted which might show whether and how the parcel was farmed independently. Crucially, no evidence has been provided to show that the machinery intended to be stored in the appeal barn (as described in the 2010 application for the appeal barn) was in reality managed or used independently from the remainder of [site address] .

Accordingly, the evidence referred to above strongly suggests that the established agricultural unit on the baseline date was the 72 hectare area shown within the blue line on the plan showing the total size of the holding submitted as part of the 2013 application (submitted to the Council less than a month after the baseline date), which includes land which is now the appeal site. Whether the 2019 development was carried out on the established agricultural unit

The application form for the 2016 application relating to the erection of extensions to an existing barn stated the site address as [site address] . The form stated that the area of the proposed agricultural unit was 75 hectares. The location plan submitted with that application stated, “Farm = 75ha”, with both the appeal site and buildings described as being associated with [site address] shown within the blue lines. That plan is titled [site address] . The supporting statement submitted with the 2016 application stated that, “... the farm business has again expanded locally”.

In 2019 the Council determined that prior approval was not required for the erection of an agricultural building under Class A(a) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO at [site address] . The land comprising the established agricultural unit (as defined above) was included within the blue line shown on the location plan submitted with that application. This plan states the site address as [site address] . It states that the blue line indicates adjoining land owned or controlled by the 2019 applicant.

As the application site is also marked in red on that plan, the reference to ‘adjoining land’ implies that the blue line relates to land adjoining the application site. As control over land for the purposes of maintaining an ongoing agricultural use is indicative of the existence of an agricultural unit on that land, the fact that the land within the blue line is stated to be owned or controlled in relation to [site address] is a strong indication that this land was part of the agricultural enterprise known as [site address] . The total size of this land is stated as being 95 hectares. The supporting statement submitted with the 2019 application stated that the business has recently expanded. The annual turnover is now stated as £300K.

The aerial photographs submitted by the Council relating to 2019 show a vehicular track crossing the adjoining field to the west of the appeal site, next to the hedgerow adjoining [address], and continuing past the south-west elevation of the 1955 barn right up to the location of the appeal site. Those 2019 photographs also show another vehicular track running alongside the hedgerow to the south-west of the site, which also appear to have provided direct access to the land to the side of the 1955 barn. This shows that land comprising title number ON232218 was not physically separate from the remainder of the established agricultural unit at the time the 2019 development occurred.

It is clear from the planning history summarised above that the established agricultural unit on the baseline date was heavily reliant on the appeal barn and the 1955 barn for the storage of crops, straw, fertiliser, and seed, and the appeal barn for the secure storage of farm equipment, including a combine harvester and tractors. Although the appeal barn may have become less relevant to the operations of [site address] after the baseline date, the evidence, as summarised above, does not suggest that land comprising title number ON232218 became excluded from the remainder of the established agricultural unit after the baseline date.

Taking all of the above into account, on a balance of probabilities, it has not been demonstrated that the land comprising title number ON232218 was not part-and-parcel of the established agricultural unit known as [site address] on or after the baseline date. Hence, it has not been shown that this land has operated as a distinct and self-contained agricultural unit during the relevant period as per paragraph Q.1(g) of Class Q. Thus, whilst the area comprising the established agricultural unit has expanded over time, this does not alter the fact that the building which was the subject of the 2019 application was built on what is essentially the same established agricultural unit as that which contains the appeal site.

I therefore find that the proposed development would not be permitted development under Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, having particular regard to whether development under Class A(a) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO has been carried out on the established agricultural unit within the relevant period. The proposed development would not comply with paragraph Q.1(g) of Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.

Following my finding on the main issue above, that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would be permitted development, it is not necessary to consider the prior approval requirements under paragraph Q.2(1)(b) and (e) of Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.

For the reasons given above, having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.