Appeal 6005105

The appeal is allowed and permission is granted for the erection of an agricultural barn at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the planning application Ref 25/11052 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

The site lies within the South-West Hampshire Green Belt and so the main issues are: • Whether or not the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • If the development is inappropriate, whether harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The first part of the Council’s reason for refusal relates to the Council’s concerns that the proposed building would not be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture having regard to its size and intended use, together with the modest size of the farming unit and existing agricultural activities and the nature of the recently refused planning application. Nor is the Council satisfied that the appellants’ submitted Agricultural Appraisal1 (AA) provides sufficient agricultural justification for the proposed barn. Accordingly, the Council considers the proposal to comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

The appeal site lies within a 0.72 ha rectangular shaped parcel of agricultural land located on the east side of [address] outside the designated [site address] settlement boundary and within the South-West Hampshire Green Belt.

To the north are the rear gardens of residential properties in [address] and there are residential properties to the west on the opposite side of [address]. To the south and east are open expanses of agricultural land.

The wider parcel of land comprises a flat field upon which there are no existing built structures and upon which some sheep were observed to be grazing during my visit. It has a gated vehicular access from [address] and is bounded by mature hedging on three sides and residential built development on the other.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site lies within agricultural land which has historically been used as such.

The appellants purchased the site in April 2024 for intended livestock farming through their DEFRA2 and APHA3 registered family business known as Flarebuck. Following a refused planning application for the erection of an agricultural field shelter4 in connection with their original intention of using the land for the grazing of horses, the appellants have since changed to sheep grazing. This has taken place on the site since October 2025, and the appellants intend to undertake lambing as a future operation.

The proposed barn is intended to be used for the housing, management and welfare of a small breeding flock of sheep, including the winter housing of breeding ewes and lambs, the provision of hot weather animal shelter, covered lambing and veterinary handling facilities, and the dry secure storage of agricultural machinery, sheep feed, treatment, bedding and fodder.

The AA submitted by the appellants considered a number of factors including the size and design of the proposed building, the area of the small-holding, the number of existing and proposed breeding ewes and followers from lambing, the lack of other owned farmland by the appellants, the absence of existing on-site shelter and storage facilities, the exposed near-coastal location of the site, and the requirement for storage of previously purchased agricultural machinery and future sheep management and lambing equipment requirements.

The AA concluded that the proposed barn would be essential to support the sustainable management of the appellants’ farming enterprise, having regard to operational efficiency, and in the interests of animal welfare and biosecurity. 1 [name] and [name] - submitted with the planning application 2 Department of Environment, Food and [name] 3 Animal and Plant Health Agency 4 [name] 25/10436 refused on 3 July 2025

Whilst the Council disagrees with the conclusion of the appellants’ AA, it has not provided substantive evidence to the contrary. As such, notwithstanding their previous intention to use the land for the grazing of horses, based on the evidence submitted with the planning application and this appeal, I have no reasonable grounds for doubting the appellants’ stated intentions regarding the future agricultural use of the land and the proposed building.

The Council’s statement of case and first reason for refusal do not refer to any specific development plan policies that require the appeal scheme to be demonstrated to be ‘reasonably necessary’ for the purposes of agriculture or for an agricultural justification for the proposal to be shown.

Moreover, Saved Policy CS21 of the New Forest District outside the National Park Core Strategy (October 2009) (the CS) in conjunction with Policy STR3 and Policy SO8 of the New Forest District Local Plan 2016-2036 Part 1: Planning Strategy (6 July 2020) (the LPP1) give positive support to development in the countryside which is appropriate in a rural setting. These policies specifically encourage agricultural enterprises.

Also, whilst I have noted interested party concerns to the contrary, there is no cogent evidence before me to suggest that the proposed building would be used for non-agricultural purposes in the future, even considering the appellants’ additional professional careers and the cited comparable size of the building to a domestic property.

The appellants have confirmed that they do not own any wider agricultural land upon which to place a new barn. Moreover, I am satisfied that an existing domestic storage shed sited on residential land within the appellants’ rear garden, referred to by interested parties, would not provide a suitable alternative to the proposed barn, having inspected the building during my site visit.

Having regard to all the above, I am satisfied that the appeal scheme relates to a proposed agricultural building on existing agricultural land.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that when considering any planning application, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 154 confirms that certain forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt. These include buildings for agriculture and forestry (Paragraph 154 a).

[name] find that the proposed building would be for agricultural use, the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated to justify the proposal. Neither is there a requirement to consider the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.

In addition, having regard to the Council’s view that the proposal is inappropriate development because it has not been demonstrated that it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of agriculture and that the barn has not been adequately agriculturally justified, it is relevant to note that the GPDO5 requirement 5 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (Part 6, [name] and B - ‘Agricultural and Forestry’) that buildings and other works must be “reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit” relates solely to the consideration of whether a proposal would be permitted development. It does not apply when considering the merits of a planning application seeking permission for an agricultural building in the Green Belt.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt and that it therefore accords with LPP1 Policy ENV2, in so much as this policy requires development proposals in the Green Belt to be determined in accordance with national planning policy.

The proposed single storey barn structure would have timber boarded walls under a grey corrugated fibre cement sheeting pitched roof. It would have a functional design with materials, form and layout typifying those found on traditional agricultural buildings sited on rural farmland. The Council has raised no objection to the design of the building per se, and neither do I.

The building would be sited in the southwest corner of the field some distance away from the existing site access point which is to be retained. Notwithstanding this, it would not encroach beyond the line of built development which characterises the opposite side of the road and which extends significantly further southwards than the appeal site.

Moreover, the siting of the building would not result in it appearing stark or incongruous within the prevailing landscape. The barn would be of a scale and height which would not be unduly excessive in relation to typical farm buildings designed to be of a size to accommodate agricultural storage as well as providing animal shelter.

The barn would be sited close to site boundaries which are defined by mature hedging of a height such that it would obscure most of the new building in public views from outside the site, including from passing traffic traversing along [address] and from the residential properties on the opposite side of this road.

Even where parts of the building would be seen, they would be reflective of details found on typical rural barns, so that such views would not appear out of keeping within the surrounding farmland. Positioning the building away from the adjacent housing in [address] serves to differentiate between the residential and agricultural built development so that the proposal does not appear as an extension of urban built development beyond the settlement boundary.

In addition, the appellants have confirmed that the existing boundary hedging has been in situ for a substantial number of years and is within their ownership. They state that it provides a useful sheltering purpose having regard to livestock welfare and management, particularly having regard to the prevailing wind direction. As such, there are no reasonable grounds to suggest that it would be removed such that this would render the new building being visibly more prominent in wider views.

Whilst the application site red line indicates the proposed line of vehicular access to the new building, the appeal scheme does not include any changes to the grassed surface of the field other than that associated with the building foundation slab, so that no formal access track to the building would be provided.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would accord with LLP1 Policies ENV3, ENV4, STR2 and STR3 and CS Policy CS21, in so much as these policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development comprises high quality design, contributes positively to local distinctiveness, is sympathetic to its environment and context, successfully integrates into the local landscape character and does not harm the setting of the New Forest National Park.

This accords with the aims of Chapters 12 and 15 of the Framework of achieving well-designed places and conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

Third-party concerns about highway safety have been raised. The existing vehicular access would remain unaltered, and the use of the land would remain as agricultural. As such, in the absence of substantive evidence of highway safety issues associated with the current access, and having regard to my observations of the access and this part of [address] during my site visit, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment that there would be no adverse effects upon highway safety.

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions in the event that the appeal be allowed. I have considered these conditions in the light of the tests set out in Paragraph 57 of the Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and imposed them where I consider them to be necessary and reasonable. Where necessary, I have altered them in the interests of clarity and precision.

For the avoidance of doubt, in considering the need for ecology and biodiversity conditions, I have had regard to the appellants’ submitted Ecological Statement6 (ES), [name] (BNG) Report dated November 2025 and [name] dated January 2026 and the Council’s Ecologist’s consultation response dated 13 January 2026.

In addition to the standard implementation condition (1), it is necessary to define the plans for certainty (2). The Council has suggested a condition requiring pre-commencement approval of details of the proposed materials. However, sufficient information is shown on the submitted drawing Ref 300-P1. The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and so the condition is not necessary and has not been imposed.

To protect the rural character of the area I have imposed a condition preventing the installation of floodlights and external lighting (3).

I have had regard to third party references to an active badger sett located near the proposed barn. The appellant’s ES suggests reliance upon the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (the PBA) to ensure appropriate mitigation. However, this 6 Trium Environmental Consultanting LLP June 2025 statement was made in response to the previously refused scheme for an agricultural field shelter and the information submitted in respect of that development proposal and without the benefit of a site visit.

The PBA is largely aimed at protecting badgers from deliberate persecution and harm. As such it is primarily concerned with animal welfare rather than conservation per se. Killing or harming badgers, disturbing them in their setts and damaging or destroying a sett are all offences under the PBA, but the legislation does not directly protect the commuting and foraging grounds of badgers which can often be adversely affected by development.

Based on interested party comments, it is reasonable to consider that badgers may be present on the appeal site. There is no substantive evidence before me that corroborates either their presence or absence. As such, having regard to the small-scale nature of the appeal scheme and the limited amount of building works involved, I am satisfied that, in the circumstances of this appeal, this matter is capable of being dealt with by a condition requiring the appellants to carry out a badger survey and gain Council approval for any required mitigation measures prior to the commencement of the development. The appellants have confirmed acceptance of this condition7.

The PPG sets out that BNG is a statutory requirement. Subject to some exceptions, in accordance with Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to a pre-commencement condition (the biodiversity gain condition) that the biodiversity gain objective of delivering at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met. The appeal proposal is subject to the statutory BNG condition which does not need to be stated8.

The development accords with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should succeed, and planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 100-P1; 1001-P1; 200-P1; and 300-P1.

No floodlighting or external lighting associated with the development shall be installed. 7 In accordance with Regulation 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Pre-Commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 8 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 024 [name]: 74-[phone]

Prior to the commencement of any construction works on site, a [name] shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist, and, if required, a [name] for [name] (MSBDC) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved MSBDC. ***End of Conditions***