Appeal 6005143

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Class A of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the erection of a building on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more, subject to limitations and conditions. The Council refused the application under paragraph A.2(2)(i) of Class A of Part 6, which requires the Council to determinate whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting, design and external appearance of the building. This has been reflected in the main issue, below.

The Council have referred to development plan policies. Prior approval appeals are not determined on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). I have taken the development plan policies into account only insofar as they are relevant to the prior approval matter under consideration.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape1.

The appeal site comprises an area of agricultural land located in the corner of a large and undulating open field, next to a public footpath which lies adjacent to a long stretch of mature hedgerow. The A338 is present on the opposite side of the hedgerow. Existing farmland rises each side of the A338. The site is close to an 1 Since 22 November 2023, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are known as National Landscapes. accessway stemming from the A338 which leads to [address] and a cluster of low-rise buildings associated with the National Animal Welfare Trust.

The proposed twin-gabled agricultural storage barn would have a large footprint. Although the proposed development would be slightly cut into the rising ground to the west, with a maximum height of approximately 12 metres it would still be a tall structure in its context. Due to its large scale, it would constitute an overly-dominant and overbearing feature when seen from the footpath mentioned above. It would create a strong sense of enclosure for users of the footpath in the vicinity of the site. This would undermine the sense of openness in this location. It would compromise the ability of users of the footpath to appreciate the natural beauty of the landscape.

The proposed development would be situated in a prominent position near to the A338. Due to its height, the proposed development would be clearly visible above the hedgerow adjoining the site. There are no trees immediately adjacent to the site which might screen the proposed development. The proposed development would be noticeably set-apart from the buildings at [address].

The appellant has referred to farm buildings located to the north-east of the site, and to farm buildings within [site address] / in an adjacent Parish. I observed that none of these buildings are visible from near the site. As such, the proposed development would not be viewed by passers-by in conjunction with the buildings referred to. Accordingly, the proposed development would not appear as forming part of any cluster of buildings.

As a large and isolated structure in this location, it would appear as an intrusive and conspicuous feature in its context. Consequently, it would not complement the vast, open landscape with strong rolling topography which is characteristic of Local Character Area WD2: [name] as described in the West Berkshire Landscape Character Assessment (2019).

I therefore find that the proposed development would not conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. Whilst not determinative, I have had regard to Policies SP2, SP7, and SP8 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted 2025). To the extent that they are relevant considerations within the terms of the GPDO, the proposed development would conflict with their aims that, amongst other things, development will be required to respond positively to the local context, conserving and enhancing local distinctiveness, sense of place and setting of the National Landscape.

Given the harm that would be caused to the landscape identified above, the proposed development would not further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape, with respect to s85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended).

The proposed development would provide benefits, including providing secure storage to meet the needs of the farm. The appellant has also referred to other potential locations for the proposed development which are unsuitable. Nevertheless, the GPDO offers no discretion where conflict is found with its requirements. Hence, the various benefits of the proposed development do not alter my findings on the main issue above.

Mention has been made of the planting of 100 oak trees, on completion of the proposed development. Such works do not fall within the remit of Class A of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. This matter does not change my findings on the main issue above.

For the reasons given above, having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.