Appeal 6006334

The appeal is dismissed.

No description of development was provided on the application form. However, I am satisfied that the description set out in the reason for refusal is both accurate and sufficiently precise for the purposes of this appeal, and I have therefore adopted it.

The main issue in the determination of the appeal is whether the proposal falls within the scope of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GDPO).

In the GPDO Schedule 2, Class A of Part 6 grants permitted development rights for: The carrying out on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more in area of – (a) Works for the erection, extension or alteration of a building; or (b) Any excavation or engineering operations, Which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.

[name].1 (1) of Part 6, it is detailed that ‘agricultural land’ means land which, before development permitted by this Part is carried out, is land in use for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business and excludes any dwellinghouse or garden. It further defines an ‘agricultural unit’ as agricultural land which is occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture, including (a) any dwelling or other building on that land occupied for the purpose of farming the land by the person who occupies the unit, or (b) any dwelling on that land occupied by a farmworker.

While it is common ground that the land is agricultural in character, the definitions above require clear evidence that the use is carried out for the purposes of a trade or business.

It is asserted that the holding is used for activities including the production of hay, haylage and silage, livestock grazing and horse livery. However, there is insufficient substantive evidence to demonstrate that these activities are undertaken for the purposes of a trade or business. [name] recognise that my site visit was only a snapshot in time, and although I observed horses grazing in some fields and areas of buildings and hardstanding in use for stabling and their management, I saw no clear indicators of any organised or ongoing use for the purpose of a trade or business.

I have had regard to the submissions that the farm is a registered agricultural holding, is registered with the Rural Payments Agency under a Single Business Identifier, is registered with the Department for Environment, Food and [name], has been allocated a County Parish Holding number, participates in the Government’s Mid Tier Stewardship Scheme, and is insured under a specialist agricultural policy with the National Farmers’ Union. However, these matters, without supporting detail, do not demonstrate that the land is actively managed for a trade or business.

Similarly, although I note that [name] is registered as a Young and [name], the claimed historical use of the land, and the absence of evidence of non-agricultural use on the farm holding, the information provided lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate the nature, scale and continuity of any trade or business. Owing to the absence of clear dates, locations and contextual detail, the photographic evidence submitted in support of the application and appeal is also limited and does not substantiate the extent or regularity of any trade or business.

Taken together, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the appeal site satisfies the GPDO definition of ‘agricultural land’. It therefore follows that the proposal would not fall within the scope of Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

Notwithstanding the above, even if the development fell within Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. Beyond a general assertion regarding safety and access, no substantive justification has been submitted.

Reference is made to a pending prior notification application under Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO and its effect on the use of the appeal site. However, given my finding that the proposal would fall outside the scope of Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, this matter does not require further consideration as it would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

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