Appeal 6004926

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the carrying out, on agricultural land comprised of an agriculture unit of 5 hectares or more in area, of works for the erection of a building which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit subject to limitations and conditions. [name].2 includes a requirement for the developer to, before beginning the development, apply 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 Council’s position is that the proposal is not considered permitted development under Class A Part 6 as it would be for the accommodation of livestock within 400 metres (m) of a protected building. No consideration was given to the prior approval matters listed in GPDO paragraph A.2.

Having regard to the above, the main issues are whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, with regard to the use of the building and distance from a protected building; and if permitted development, whether the prior approval details would be acceptable.

[name].1(i) states that development is not permitted by Class A if it would consist of, or include, the erection or construction of, or the carrying out of any works to, a building, structure or an excavation used or to be used for the accommodation of livestock or of the storage of slurry or sewage sludge where the building, structure or excavation is, or would be, within 400m of the curtilage of a protected building. For the purposes of the GPDO Class A, as defined in paragraph D.1(1) a protected building means any permanent building which is normally occupied by people or would be so occupied, if it were in use for purposes for which it is designed; but does not include—(a) a building within the agricultural unit; or (b) a dwelling or other building on another agricultural unit which is used for or in connection with agriculture.

It is not disputed that the proposal would be used to house livestock and would be within 400m of a clubhouse associated with [name]. The appellant contends that consideration has not been given to the clubhouse not being a residential building and so no one lives there, that the proposal would not be visible from the clubhouse and that the cattle to be housed in the proposal would have previously been separated from their mothers and would not give rise to noise issues. However, these matters are not determinative in assessing whether a building falls within the definition of a protected building. The clubhouse is a permanent building which is normally occupied by people, and I have no clear reason to find otherwise that it is a protected building.

[name].2(1)(a) sets out that development is permitted by Class A where it is carried out within 400m of a protected building in the circumstances described in paragraph D.1(3). However, there is no substantive evidence that there is no other suitable building or structure available to accommodate the livestock 400m or more from a protected building, the need to accommodate the livestock arises from quarantine requirements or an emergency, or that the livestock require temporary accommodation because they are sick or giving birth or newly born or to provide shelter against extreme weather conditions. It is not therefore clear that the proposal would fall within the circumstances outlined in paragraph D.1(3).

To conclude, the proposal would be used for the accommodation of livestock within 400m of a protected building and it has not been shown that it would meet any of the circumstances described in paragraph D.1(3). It would therefore fail to comply with the description of permitted development set out by Part 6, Class A of the GPDO. As the proposal would not be permitted development, it is not necessary to consider the prior approval matters of siting, design and external appearance.

The Council’s officer report indicates concerns regarding whether the proposal would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and whether the site falls within the definition of agricultural land owing to the presence of a telecommunications mast at the site. However, these matters did not form part of the reason for refusal on the decision notice, and as I am dismissing the scheme on other grounds, it is not necessary to consider them further.

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