Appeal 6005798

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for steel-framed agricultural building for storage of farm crops and large machinery at [site address] , [site address] , Gannaway, [site address] , Warwickshire [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/02597/AGNOT and the details submitted with it.

I have used the Council’s description of the development, as this is a more concise description of the proposal and removes superfluous text from that set out in the application form.

The application site straddles two local planning authority boundaries. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that in such circumstances “...the applicant must submit identical applications to each local planning authority”1. I understand that no application has been submitted to the adjoining local planning authority. Whilst the GPDO and PPG do not explicitly state the need to submit identical applications of this particular type, a local planning authority only has the authority to determine an application within its own boundaries. As such, my decision is limited only to the portion of land within Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s boundaries. 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 011 [name]: 14-[phone]

Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO sets out that agricultural development, including the erection of a building, on units of 5 hectares or more is permitted development, subject to certain restrictions, limitations and conditions.

This includes a requirement that, under [name].2 (2) 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, amongst other matters.

There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal meets the requirements under paragraph A.1 and is therefore permitted development. Based on the evidence before me I find no reason to reach a different conclusion.

The Council refused prior approval on the grounds that insufficient evidence had been presented to demonstrate why the building cannot be sited closer to existing buildings. In determining this appeal, I must assess the proposal before me, rather than contemplate whether the proposed building could be sited elsewhere. Therefore, the main issue is whether prior approval should be granted having regard to matters of siting, design and external appearance.

The appeal site lies within a predominantly rural and agricultural landscape characterised by open countryside with fields, hedgerows, scattered trees as well as areas of woodland. [site address] is a reasonably straight and flat road of modest length that links clusters of buildings at either end.

Positioned approximately midway along [site address] , the proposed building would be located behind high vegetation, with glimpses of it possible through breaks in the dense hedgerow. Whilst it would also be visible from the access point, the building would be set back from the road, sitting alongside trees that mark the boundary with an adjoining field and with a backdrop of distant trees to the east.

Although isolated from nearby agricultural buildings and a sizeable structure, the building’s appearance would reflect that of a modern functional agricultural building, which would not be an unexpected or unusual feature within this farming landscape.

Consequently, due to its positioning away from the highway and the presence of established hedgerows and trees, the proposed building would be unlikely to draw attention and would not appear as a dominant or incongruous addition in the landscape. As such, the proposal is in accordance with the Framework in ensuring that development is sympathetic to local character.

Reference is made by the Council to the Arden Special Landscape Area. No details of the status of this designation have been provided. In any case, the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A do not require regard be had to the

For the above reasons, I conclude that the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed building would be acceptable. Prior approval should therefore be granted.

Much has been stated by both parties regarding the access off [site address] , particularly in relation to a previously refused application for planning permission on the site. However, I note that the description on the application form states that the proposed building would be accessed via an existing access off [site address] and it does not include reference to any alterations to this arrangement. Moreover, the Council did not refuse the application on the grounds of highway safety. I saw that the existing access is established and wide in width along a straight section of [site address] . Based on the evidence before me and from my own observations, I have come to the same conclusions as the Council on this matter.

My attention has been drawn to the outcome of a number of planning applications in recent years at the site. I have considered the appeal scheme before me within the scope of matters that can be considered under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A.

Development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO is permitted subject to conditions set out at paragraph A.2. For this type of development, the GPDO does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.