Appeal 6004479

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal has been amended in the heading above to omit the words ‘prior approval application for proposed’, as they are not a description of development.

Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) sets out that agricultural development, including the erection of a building, which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more is permitted development, subject to certain restrictions, limitations and conditions.

This includes a requirement that, under [name].2 (2) (i) of Class A, the developer applies to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting, design and external appearance of the building, the siting and means of construction of the private way, the siting of the excavation or deposit or the siting and appearance of the tank, as the case may be.

The Council’s reason for refusal states that it has not been demonstrated that the building would be sited on purely agricultural land, and it cannot therefore conclude that the proposed building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Therefore, the Council contends that the proposal is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

Accordingly, the main issue is whether the appeal proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, with particular regard to whether the building would be sited on agricultural land and would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

Planning permission was granted in 2022 for a replacement dwelling following demolition of existing buildings. This was later amended in 2023 through a Section 73 application that included amendments to the approved plans. A further planning consent was granted in March 2024 for a replacement dwelling and garage following demolition of existing buildings. The full details of these consents are not before me. The Council’s officer report illustrates, through a red line boundary plan, the extent of the residential land associated with the replacement dwelling granted planning permission in 2024. Based on this red line boundary plan, the Council asserts that the barn would be located on land associated with the residential dwelling.

[name].1 of Part 6 of the GPDO indicates that for the purposes of Class A, agricultural land is land which, before development permitted by Part 6 is carried out, is “land in use for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business and excludes any dwellinghouse or garden”. An agricultural unit is “agricultural land which is occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture, including (a) any dwelling or other building on that land occupied for the purpose of farming the land by the person who occupies the unit, or (b) any dwelling on that land occupied by a farmworker.”

The evidence indicates that the dwelling and adjacent agricultural land, form an agricultural unit that is subject to a County Parish Holding number identifying that the land is used for keeping livestock.

The prior notification supporting statement identifies that the agricultural building is required to house farm vehicles and equipment for the purposes of pasture and boundary maintenance of the agricultural land. Whilst a list of the equipment to be stored is provided, alongside the required floorspace for each piece of machinery, no further substantive information regarding the agricultural trade or business activities being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken within the agricultural unit, is provided.

The plans accompanying the appeal include a red line boundary plan that covers the extent of the agricultural unit, which includes the new dwelling and its accompanying garden. However, the proposed site plan which includes the red line boundary (1786/PA-02), whilst showing the location of the proposed agricultural building fails to indicate the extent of the residential land or the adjacent agricultural land.

The appellant has specifically drawn my attention to drawing number 1550/CLD- 104A to indicate the extent of residential land. However, the details shown on the proposed site plan (1786/PA-02) do not clearly correspond with those shown on drawing number 1550/CLD-104A and therefore I am unable to ascertain the separation between agricultural land and residential garden.

Consequently, the plans fail to demonstrate that the proposed agricultural building would be located on agricultural land as defined by [name].1 of Part 6 of the GPDO. Subsequently, whilst I am satisfied that the building is of necessary size to house the equipment listed within evidence, the evidence presented falls short in justifying that the building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. I therefore must take a precautionary approach based on the evidence before me and conclude that the proposal, as presented, is not within the scope of permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

Whilst not representing a formal reason for refusal, the Council is silent on whether it would have required prior approval for the siting, design and external appearance of the building under [name].2 (2) (i) of Class A. However, given my finding that the proposal is not permitted development, there is no purpose in going on to consider whether to grant prior approval.

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