Appeal 6006614

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

The Council considers the building, which would be used partly for the housing of livestock and lambing in spring, would be within 400m of the curtilage of protected buildings and thereby would not meet the requirement under paragraph A.1.(i) of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, with particular reference to its distance from protected buildings.

Paragraph Class A.1.(i) states that development is not permitted by Class A if it would consist of, or include, the erection or construction of, or the carrying out of any works to, a building, structure or an excavation used or to be used for the accommodation of livestock or for the storage of slurry or sewerage sludge where the building, structure or excavation is, or would be, within 400m of the curtilage of a protected building.

A protected building is defined at paragraph D.1.(1) as any permanent building which is normally occupied by people or would be so occupied, if it were in use for purposes for which it is designed; but does not include- (a) a building within the agricultural unit; or (b) a dwelling or other building on another agricultural unit which is used for or in connection with agriculture.

The proposed building would be used for the storage of fodder and implements, such as a tractor, topper, and chain harrow, and housing for livestock and lambing in spring. I understand that the applicant currently has no building on the holding to house the livestock over the winter months due to circumstances that resulted in the need to reorganise the agricultural enterprise and ensure that adequate agricultural infrastructure is available on the holding.

There is no dispute between the parties that the dwellings known as [address], which is also referred to as [address], and [address] are located within 400m of the proposed building. The Council’s case centres on a conversation with the occupier of [address], where it was claimed that neither they nor their spouse, nor anyone living in the house, are farm workers, and the dwelling is not occupied for the purpose of farming the land. It is also alleged, as a result of the same conversation, that the occupier of [address] is not a farmworker.

Evidence before me indicates, in the form of a holding number and photographs, that the land at [address] is actively farmed. Moreover, there is correspondence from the person who farms the land and buildings at [address]. This is under a fixed term tenancy agreement with an individual of [address]. It includes a description of how the buildings and land are used as well as a holding number. It also clarifies that they do not reside at [address].

On the basis of the information before me and from my own observations, I am satisfied that that the land at [address] and [address] are actively farmed. However, the evidence does not substantiate whether the dwellings in question form part of these respective agricultural units, including whether they are occupied for the purpose of farming the land or by a farmworker. The evidence refers to farming activities on land and within buildings but not specifically the nature of the occupation of these dwellings. Therefore, there is the possibility that the dwellings are not functionally occupied as part of an agricultural unit or in connection with agriculture, meeting the relevant definition and comprising protected buildings.

I appreciate the oral nature of the evidence provided by the Council. However, on the basis of all the information before me, I am unable to conclude with reasonable certainty that the dwellings in question are on another agricultural unit which is used for or in connection with agriculture. As such the proposed building would be located within 400m of protected buildings.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the scheme does not meet the criteria of paragraph A.1.(i) of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO. Therefore, the proposal would not constitute permitted development under the GPDO.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.