Appeal 6005754

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development contained within the Council’s Decision Notice as I consider it describes the development more accurately, but in doing this I have nonetheless had full regard in my reasoning to the description on the application form.

Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) permits development consisting of a change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and any land within its curtilage to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouse) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, together with building operations which are reasonably necessary to enable the conversion of the building. This is subject to limitations and conditions as set out in paragraph Q.1 and Q.2 of Class Q.

The GPDO states that the local planning authority can 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 conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraphs Q.1 and Q.2.

The Council contends that the development is not permitted development under Class Q.1(a)(i) because it considers that insufficient information has been provided to adequately demonstrate that the appeal building formed part of an established agricultural unit on 24 July 2023.

The Council has considered the information provided by the appellant demonstrating that there is no agricultural tenancy over the site and that the freehold has been occupied by the Appellant since around 2019. Accordingly, the Council does not wish to defend the second reason for refusal regarding this matter.

Consequently, the main issue is whether the appeal proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO with particular regard to whether the building formed part of an established agricultural unit on 24 July 2023.

[name].1(a)(i) outlines that development is not permitted by Class Q if in the case of a site that is part of an established agricultural unit, the site was not part of an established agricultural unit on (i) 24 July 2023 or (ii) where the site became part of the established agricultural unit after 24 July 2023, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins.

[name] of part 3 of the GPDO defines an established agricultural unit as agricultural land occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture.

The building is split into two distinct areas. The element subject of this appeal is a smaller section that is internally separate from the larger section of the building. For ease in my decision, I will refer to this smaller section as ‘the Barn’. The Barn has a number of garage doors which are, to my mind, relatively domestic in appearance. It does not benefit from internal access to the larger element of the building. I acknowledge that the presence of the garage doors in isolation does not necessarily equate to the use of the barn as a domestic garage. However, the garage doors are adjacent to the dwelling house and a detached double garage is mentioned within the [name] for the site.

There is a statutory declaration and supporting statement before me which outline that the Farm was purchased by the appellant in 2019 and the Barn was used to store pots, fleece, plants and seeds as well as grow bags and pallets of fertilisers associated with the fruit farm. Additionally, that the farm machinery including a tractor, power harrow and flail mower, amongst other things, have also been stored in the Barn. Regarding the tractor I note the correspondence between the appellant and the Council.

The Council does not dispute that there has been an established agricultural unit at [site address] which existed on 24 July 2023. This is supported by the evidence before me, which includes amongst other things, screenshots dating from around May 2023 to August 2023 as well as the invoices contained within the statutory declaration dating from around October 2020 to November 2021 which demonstrate the fruit farm business at [site address] . Nevertheless, this evidence does not specifically relate to the Barn but rather to the wider agricultural unit. Notably, the invoices in the statutory declaration pre-date 24 July 2023.

Based on the evidence before me, the Barn has been used for the storage of what could be considered domestic items such as a hand lawnmower and cooker. [name] acknowledge the appellant contends that the cooker is used to store rat poison and the lawn mower is used to cut grass in the poly tunnels. However, there remains on balance, limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the Barn was, on the 24 July 2023, being used as part of the established agricultural unit, especially given its internal separation from the larger section of the building.

I note the aerial images within the evidence before me. However, whilst they demonstrate the agricultural setting of the Barn, they do not adequately demonstrate that the Barn was part of the established agricultural unit on the requisite date.

Thus, whilst the statutory declaration is one form of evidence, on balance, there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate that the appeal building was part of an established agricultural unit on 24 July 2023.

The appellant highlights in their statement of case that although it is difficult to prove, there is no doubt the barn has only ever been used for agriculture. However, whilst I acknowledge that the barn has been in existence since around 1999 and that the appellant contends that it has been in an agricultural use in that time, there remains limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate this to be the case on the requisite date.

In conclusion, whilst I acknowledge the appellants frustration, given all of the above and based on the evidence before me, I have not been provided with sufficient information to enable me to establish that the proposed development would comply with the requirements of paragraph Q1(a)(i) of the GPDO. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Barn was part of an established agricultural unit on 24 July 2023.

There is no need for me to go on and consider the effect of the proposed development including noise impacts of the development with regard to the prior approval matters specified in paragraph Q.2. under Class Q as it would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.