Appeal 6004038

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form describes the development as a garage with hay storage loft above but the decision notice describes it as an agricultural storage building. There is no explanation by either of the main parties as to why the description is different but I note that the application has been advertised as being for an agricultural building and that description has been used in explaining why the Council refused permission. The appellants case is also based on it being an agricultural building.

The building is substantially constructed and from my observations on site and the plans submitted depicting the finished building, it appears more akin to a garage with storage space above rather than a more typical agricultural building. Nevertheless, as the building is referred to as an agricultural one throughout the planning application and appeal documents, I shall assess it as such.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025. Given that this is at the consultation stage and taking into account the matters before me, I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties. Any reference to the Framework is based on the current version, dated December 2024.

The main issues are: - • whether the location of an agricultural building is acceptable with regard to the relevant development plan policy; and • the effect of the building on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appellants are the owners and occupiers of [address]. The farmhouse appears to be [site address] , the address of the appeal site. The red line denoting the appeal site comprises the appeal building and land including part of the access track to it, land in front of it and an additional area of land on the other side of the access track. There is another residential building to the south-east of the farmhouse.

The appellants state that they own approximately 13.1 hectares of agricultural land split between two sites; [address] – 5.43 hectares and land at [name] – 7.67 hectares. The building is required to provide indoor storage for livestock, machinery and feedstuffs. Indoor storage for machinery is required both for security reasons and for protection against the weather. [name] have little evidence that security is a particular problem at this farmstead, I can appreciate the weather implications as the weather was particularly inclement at the time of my site visit.

The appellants explain the need for housing animals during poor weather and during lambing season in the interests of animal welfare and in keeping with the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s (FAWC) ‘[name] (described as freedom from hunger and thirst; discomfort; pain, injury or disease; fear and distress; and freedom to express normal behaviour.

However, the Council states that there are already a number of buildings available which would be sufficient to accommodate the size of the agricultural unit. Whilst the appeal site plan does not show any other buildings, there are other buildings outside the red edged appeal site. These include stables adjacent to the appeal building, another building next to that with roller shutter doors, a stone building next to the house and a further building to the north.

The latter building had two goats sheltering at the time of my site visit and there were a few sheep sheltering in a field next to a wall. There were also two horses in the stables. I note the appellants photograph includes chickens. Other than this there is little evidence as to the amount of livestock associated with the farm. No documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant and the Council’s records indicate that there was little evidence at the time of Officer’s visits. The appellants state that they successfully breed sheep and promote land management but have not produced evidence to substantiate this. The appellants case is therefore very weak on the matter of livestock.

With regard to machinery, there were various pieces of machinery around the site at the time of my visit and I have no reason to dispute that some storage space would be required. However, evidence that would clarify the level of agricultural activity taking place that would warrant a new building is sparse and what information has been submitted is by no means convincing.

Moreover, the building itself is of a design, appearance and construction not akin to a standard agricultural building. Its cavity walls, timber roof trusses and two storey design appear more likely to be a garage and storage space referred to on the application form rather than the agricultural building subsequently referred to. Furthermore, whether or not the intention is to install a floor to create an upper level is immaterial in that the appearance of the building with its steep roof and upper level openings would still make it appear an unlikely agricultural building.

Local Plan1 Policy 2 (CP2) indicates that outside villages, within designated [name], the amount of new development will be tightly limited. It sets out a spatial approach and explains that the countryside is a valuable resource and uncontrolled growth of the urban area should be prevented. It encourages the rural economy including diversification and tourism. The policy is not specifically promoting rural diversification or tourism in favour of traditional agricultural enterprises it simply broadens the opportunities for economic growth in the rural area. This is consistent with paragraph 88 of the Framework which also promotes sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas.

Although the appellants state that the building is of a scale that is reasonably necessary for their requirements, the evidence simply does not support this. Consequently, an agricultural building in this location is not acceptable. The evidence is insufficient to justify this development in the countryside contrary to the relevant development plan policy, in particular, Local Plan Policy CP2 and the Framework.

The appeal building is located amongst other buildings and does not intrude into the wider countryside. However, it adds another building to this cluster creating a substantial collection of buildings. Although the proposal is described as being for agricultural purposes, it is more akin to a domestic building. Its design, height and appearance would not reflect those typical of an agricultural building. Its purpose, in terms of its intended function together with its appearance, is more like another domestic property. Even if this is not the intention, the proliferation of buildings in this grouping detracts from the open and rural character of the wider area.

In addition to the building, the appeal site includes an area of land. The submitted site plan indicates that this will be planted with a comprehensive landscaping scheme. A scheme has not been submitted as part of the appeal documents and its function is not clear. The area of land is unrelated to the appeal building and whilst landscaping may have ecological advantages, providing an opportunity for biodiversity, no explanation is given as to its relationship to the proposed building or the reasons for it. It would not be appropriate to impose a condition to secure landscaping details on this piece of land as it does not relate to the building nor is it referred to in the description of development. Therefore, I cannot justify a condition against the tests set out in the Framework or the Planning Practice Guidance.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This would conflict with the objective of Local Plan Policy CP2 to tightly limit new development in countryside areas.

The appellants refer to [name] in defence of the potential future development of the site and the operational requirements that may arise from it. I accept that the appellants may expand their agricultural operation and basing a decision for this 1 Blackburn With Darwen Local Plan 2021 – 2037 (Adopted on the 25th January 2024). building could be considered as failing to appreciate future expansion plans. However, the appellants have not put forward a robust case for any future plans, it is insufficient to merely state that practices may change, more livestock may be purchased, more machinery might be required and management practices may change. These are words only without any evidence to support any real intention for growth.

With regard to the use of the building, the appellants suggest a condition restricting it to purposes ancillary to the agricultural holding. However, if I was satisfied that the building was intended for an agricultural use there would be no need for the condition. As it stands, a condition would be unreasonable as the scale, scope and operation of the agricultural unit is not clear and I doubt whether a condition could be worded that would be sufficiently precise. The tests for conditions as set out in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance would not therefore be met.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, for the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.