Appeal 6003690

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal differs from the application form to the decision notice. That above has been taken from the application form, which adequately describes the proposal.

Following the submission of the appeal, the appellant submitted additional information to address the reason for refusal. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on the information and I have therefore taken this into account in making my decision.

The application was submitted under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A or B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order (as amended) (GPDO). Agricultural units of 5 hectares or more benefit from permitted development rights to erect new agricultural buildings under Class A of Part 6. Where the unit is less than 5 hectares in size, Class B permits the extension or alteration of an agricultural building. Both classes are subject to various limitations and conditions including that the site in question must be agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit.

The appellant has subsequently confirmed on the appeal form that the site area is 1.1 hectares. Hence, my determination relates to Class B, Part 6 of the GPDO.

The main issue in dispute is whether the proposed development would fall within the scope of the deemed planning permission granted by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class B of the GPDO.

The meaning of agriculture is taken from s336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and includes the following activities which should not be taken as an exhaustive or exclusive list: ‘Horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock...the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to...agricultural purposes...’

The meaning of agricultural land for Part 6 is set out in paragraph D.1, and states it is ‘land which, before development permitted by this part is carried out, is....in use for agriculture and ....so used for the purposes of a trade or business and excludes any dwellinghouse or garden’.

An ‘agricultural unit’ is also defined in Part 6, paragraph D.1, for the purposes of Part 6 as agricultural land which is occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture but including specified dwellings.

At the time of determining the application the appellant had submitted insufficient information for the Council to ascertain whether the application was made pursuant to Class A or Class B of Part 6, Schedule 2 of the GPDO or to demonstrate the appeal site constituted agricultural land. As such, the Council determined that planning permission was required as it had not been satisfactorily demonstrated the appeal scheme could utilise the relevant permitted development rights for the type of development proposed.

The appellant has subsequently confirmed on the appeal form that the site area is 1.1 hectares which is taken to relate to the size of any agricultural unit. Class B of the GPDO does not allow for the erection of an agricultural building on units of this size. Furthermore, such an agricultural unit would be too small to benefit from agricultural permitted development rights under Class A. It follows that the appeal must fail on this point alone.

However, the appellant has also not provided substantive evidence that the appeal site constitutes agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit. Based on the information provided it is not shown that the site is in use for the purposes of an agricultural trade or business.

Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated that the application would fall within the scope of permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6 of the GPDO and as such, it does not benefit from permitted development rights.

The appellant has submitted evidence relating to a materially different development approved in 2001. This evidence carries little weight in the assessment of this appeal as the appeal must be determined on its own merits against the current GPDO and a scheme either complies with the legislation or it does not.

The appellant provided details of a planning permission for a dwelling located outside the appeal site. This evidence is not relevant to the appeal and has no bearing on my consideration of matters in dispute.

The appellant has made generic reference to human rights. Human Rights legislation is relevant to the GPDO in that it must be interpreted and applied in a way that is compatible. In this case, the scope of my assessment primarily concerns provisions of the GPDO which leave little room for a flexible interpretation. Given that, and the absence of evidence to show otherwise, I am satisfied that my determination is a proportionate response within the context of the GPDO, which seeks to balance development rights against their wider effects on the environment.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.