Appeal 6004367

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the decision notice, as it is a more accurate, succinct description than the one provided on the planning application form.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) set out that the change of use of agricultural buildings to a flexible commercial use is permitted development, subject to certain limitations and conditions. Class R relates to various permitted uses, including Class E (commercial, business or service), which is the proposed use sought by this appeal.

The provisions of paragraph W(3) of the GPDO is clear that the local planning authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority – (a) the proposed development does not comply with, or (b) the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the relevant conditions, limitations or restrictions specified in the applicable Part.

The Council refused the application on the basis that the building is not an ‘agricultural building’ and that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the limitations under paragraph R and R.1 are met. Furthermore, the Council consider that Class R does not confer any rights in respect of operational development, and that nothing in the GPDO permits development contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission.

Accordingly, the main issue is whether the proposal falls within the scope of the permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R of the GPDO.

Under paragraph R.1. of the GPDO, development is not permitted by Class R if – (a) the building was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit – (i) on 3rd July 2012, or (ii) in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use, or (iii) in the case of a site which was brought into use after 3rd July 2012, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class R begins.

[name] of the GPDO provides relevant definitions: ‘agricultural building’ means a building used for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business; ‘agricultural use’ refers to such uses; and an ‘established agricultural unit’ is agricultural land which is occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture.

The term ‘agriculture’ is defined1 as including 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 the farming of land for other agricultural purposes.

There is no dispute between the parties that the main building was originally approved as an agricultural building in 2010/20112 and the application form refers to its use for agricultural, storing of animal feed and machinery. Further, although I have not been provided with a copy, the appellant’s evidence is that a [name] in respect of a separate application for a hen shed recorded that the lean-to extension to the building was under construction in 2011. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that the building was used solely for an agricultural use on 3rd July 2012, or before that date. Nor has an established agricultural unit been identified with reference to a plan or any other evidence.

The appellant asserts that [site address] is a 17-acre agricultural holding, actively managed as a single agricultural unit, but the extent or location of the holding has not been identified on the plans which are before me. I observed that land immediately surrounding the building, and identified on the Site Location Plan, comprises several camping or campervan pitches which were either grassed or hard surfaced, camping pods, toilet facilities, various vehicles and areas being used for the storage of potted plants.

The appellant’s evidence is that the plants are salvaged, which involves receiving stressed or unsold plants, trees, and shrubs from local nurseries and garden centres and restoring them to a saleable condition. At the time of my site visit, whilst a small number of large trees were being stored, the main part of the building was in use for the storage of miscellaneous items including (but not limited 1 Section 336 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 2 [name]. 10/00073/AGR and 11/00068/FUL to) a farm utility vehicle, lawn mowers, bags of hay and building materials. The nature of the storage appeared to be associated with the general running and maintenance of the land around the building and notably the camping related uses. I also observed that the ‘lean-to’ part of the building has partially been converted to living accommodation, including kitchen units with an office area, which are clearly non-agricultural uses.

Further, whilst I observed sheep grazing on neighbouring land, in the absence of any documented evidence of DEFRA registration or the County Parish Holding number, or any indication of livestock numbers or the location of the rotational grazing, it is not possible to ascertain whether there is a livestock operation associated with the building. Save the storage of a limited amount of hay, I observed no evidence of such an operation within the building. Moreover, whilst I saw a few free-range hens on the wider land, it has not been demonstrated how the building relates to this enterprise, if at all.

Therefore, whilst there is a small element of horticultural use, I am not satisfied that the building was solely used for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on 3rd July 2012, or before that date, or for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class R would begin. Consequently, the proposal fails to fall within the scope of the permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R of the GPDO. Accordingly, there is no need for me to consider the other conditions, limitations or restrictions or prior approval matters.

Concern has been raised by the appellant in respect of the Council’s consideration and handling of the application, including the timing and scope of the site visit. However, this has had no bearing on the appeal, which I have determined based on the evidence which is before me, and my own observations on my site visit.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.