Appeal 6007019

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the retention of two agricultural buildings and access track at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/40600/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development is hereby permitted in accordance with the following approved plans: 2025-224-001 P5; 2025-224-002.

The buildings and any associated areas of hardstanding hereby permitted shall only be used for agricultural purposes.

Within 3 months of the date of this decision, a management plan detailing how any possible odour, noise and light nuisance is to be controlled shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall only be occupied in full accordance with the approved management plan.

Within 4 months of the date of this decision, the access, passing place and hardstanding as depicted upon the approved Block Plan Ref: 2025-224-001 P5 shall be implemented in full, in complete accordance with construction and surfacing details to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be retained at all times thereafter.

The proposal is retrospective in nature, in so far as two buildings (the buildings), an associated yard (the yard), and an access track off a shared private drive (the track) are already in situ at the site. I shall consider the appeal on this basis, whilst also noting that additional areas of hardstanding not yet implemented (including works to formalise a passing place alongside the track) are shown on the submitted Block Plan for determination.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am satisfied that the site address is accurate and not misleading, notwithstanding the reference made to [address].

The main issue is: • Whether or not the development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) states that development in the Green Belt shall be regarded as inappropriate unless it falls within certain specified exceptions. One such exception relates to buildings for agriculture and forestry. In addition, engineering operations, such as the formation of an access track or areas of hardstanding, may also constitute an exception provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Policy SP7 of The Plan for Stafford Borough (2011-2031) (June 2014) (The Plan) confirms that development within the Green Belt will only be supported where consistent with national policies for the control of development.

With regard to buildings for agriculture, it is important to note that the Framework does not impose limitations relating to size or other factors. For clarity, the requirement within the permitted development regime that buildings must be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture relates solely to considerations of whether a proposal would be permitted development and does not form part of the assessment under this main issue. The key consideration, therefore, is whether the buildings are genuinely for agricultural purposes, rather than whether their scale is proportionate to any livestock enterprise.

The buildings are timber-clad structures with sheeted mono-pitched roofs. Building 1 is linear in form and subdivided into three internal spaces. I observed hay bales stored within one area, while another space accommodated machinery including a small tractor with an attached hedge trimmer, alongside ancillary items such as a work bench and a limited number of logs. The modest central partition provides secure storage.

Building 2 is L-shaped and contains two enclosed areas housing livestock – I observed lambs in one and a sow with piglets in the other. I witnessed the remaining open-sided section to store additional hay bales, a mini-digger, and other ancillary items. The buildings are positioned at opposite edges of a modest yard, which itself accommodated some machinery and equipment clearly associated with agriculture, including a tractor, hay turners, a post knocker, and a mower.

The buildings form part of a grassland holding of approximately 3.54 hectares. The southern portion has been subdivided into paddocks, several of which I observed in active use for grazing sheep, including rams, ewes, and lambs. In view of the manner in which the holding and its buildings are utilised, there are a range of factors that indicate the buildings to serve an agricultural purpose.

I have nonetheless noted that the appellant operates a contracting business from a separate location. [name] am led to understand that some contracting equipment is, at times, used on the appeal site when required, the appellant has asserted that the site does not function as any form of operational base for that business. Even so, interested parties have raised concerns regarding frequent vehicle movements and the concurrent presence on site of multiple vehicle types. Moreover, it has been suggested that the level of activity resembles a commercial rather than an agricultural use.

However, my site inspection, albeit representative of a single snapshot in time, did not reveal any clear evidence of a commercial enterprise in a contracting sense or otherwise. The extent and nature of stored equipment appeared representative of a small-scale agricultural operation, and the buildings themselves offer limited storage capacity. This is especially when noting the manner in which I observed the buildings to accommodate and support livestock. Further, although the sale of items including logs, vehicles, and machinery from the site has been alleged, I observed no notable accumulation of goods indicative of a retail enterprise and regular activities of a sales-related type have not been clearly substantiated.

While photographic evidence of vehicle movements has been submitted by interested parties, such material is largely undated and does not, to my mind, provide a suitably comprehensive or reliable record over a precisely defined period. As such, this photographic evidence does not conclusively demonstrate regular commercial activity unrelated to agriculture.

Nevertheless, to assist in offering robust assurances in an agricultural use respect, a condition could be imposed should the appeal be successful so as to restrict the use of the buildings and associated areas of hardstanding to agricultural purposes only. This would provide a clear mechanism and point of reference for any possible future monitoring and/or enforcement proceedings.

Taking all related matters into account – including the role performed by the buildings in housing livestock, machinery, and feed/bedding, and their integration within an actively managed agricultural holding – I find it reasonable to find that the buildings are for agricultural purposes. The absence of utilities does not undermine their suitability for such use.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have found that the buildings meet an inappropriate development exception that does not expressly state a need to assess the effect on openness or whether the buildings conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The buildings should not therefore be regarded as harmful in these respects.

The engineering operations include the construction of the track and the yard. These features occupy discreet locations set back from [site address] . The track is relatively short and confined to the southern portion of the holding, whilst the yard is centred to the space between buildings. Both the track and the yard are of simple hardcore construction and do not appear overly engineered or visually intrusive. As such, notwithstanding their capacity to receive moving or parked vehicles, the track and the yard do not result in a material loss of Green Belt openness.

An extension to the yard is proposed to facilitate turning opportunities and a formal passing place is to be added to the side of the track. These additions would be modest in scale and physically related to existing hardstanding. Subject to a condition securing appropriate construction and surfacing details, I am satisfied that the existing and proposed engineering operations would preserve openness and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

For the above reasons, I find that the development does not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Consequently, for the avoidance of doubt, very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated in order to justify the development. The scheme accords with Policy SP7 of The Plan and the Green Belt protection policies of the Framework in so far as these policies set out exceptions to development in the Green Belt being considered inappropriate.

In terms of the development’s effect upon the character and appearance of the area, the buildings are modest in scale, of simple design, and discreetly sited adjacent to a field boundary and near an existing farm complex. They are not visually intrusive and integrate acceptably with the rural landscape. The yard and the track are similarly unobtrusive. Subject to a condition being imposed to control new hardstanding – which I suggest should seek to align with the specification and finishes of both the track and the yard – I am content that the development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Concerns regarding the absence of any detailed farm business plan or livestock management strategy are noted. However, merely a pair of modestly sized agricultural buildings are the principal focus of this appeal. Further, I am unaware of any clear policy requirement for an essential need to be demonstrated for the form of development that is under consideration (which I note does not include a residential element) at this site in the Green Belt. In any event, based on the scale of the holding and the reported and observed current levels of livestock which could quite legitimately grow in the future, the buildings are reasonably justified.

With regard to residential amenity, concerns about noise and disturbance have been noted, particularly given the proximity of nearby dwellings. Thus, in the interests of ensuring the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are protected, it would be reasonable and necessary to secure a management plan by way of condition in the event the appeal be successful. Such a plan would also secure details of how any potential odour and light nuisance would be controlled. I note that to place a control over lighting would also be in the interests of ensuring the character of the rural area is safeguarded. For the avoidance of doubt, it is anticipated that arrangements for the storage of feed and the disposal of waste bedding shall be covered by the management plan.

The implementation of the proposed passing place and extended yard would be securable via condition. Even in the absence of submitted swept path analysis, I am content that these features would facilitate safe vehicle manoeuvring, enabling access and egress in a forward gear. I note that, owing to the modest size and largely self-sufficient nature of the livestock rearing enterprise in question, there is no reasonable expectation of regular movements to and from the site by especially large vehicles such as heavy goods vehicles.

While available visibility at the junction with [site address] is less than ideal, the shared driveway is well-established and of wide specification adjacent to the highway. Further, there is no clear evidence of a significant intensification in use. In addition, the highway authority, in its latest correspondence (2 December 2026), has not raised an objection to the development. This is a matter of importance as it is they who are responsible for the safety of users of the local highway network.

Concerns have been raised that, for the purposes of accessing the site, vehicles encroach on to land that falls outside of the appellant’s ownership or control. Further, it has been suggested that the appellant’s access rights are more confined than those reflected upon the plans for determination. However, it is apparent that the relevant landowner has been served notice of this appeal and there is no obvious reason to consider that any potential dispute could not be properly dealt with under legislation dealing with private legal rights relating to land ownership and/or rights of access.

I have noted concerns related to drainage and the management of surface water at the site. However, as indicated in the Council’s Officer Report, it is my understanding that surface water is disposed of to an adjacent ditch via perforated pipework that runs the length of the track and that also serves the yard. Both the track and the yard have permeable surfaces. When also factoring in the modest ground coverage of the buildings, I am satisfactorily content that adequate drainage provisions are and shall be in place.

As the land where the buildings, the yard, and the track have been constructed would previously have comprised paddock land with, realistically, a low biodiversity value, there is no reason to consider that the scheme has necessitated harm to biodiversity or protected species. Further, as the proposal is retrospective, there is no mandatory requirement to deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain.

It has been suggested that any successful outcome of this appeal could set a precedent for decision-making elsewhere. However, any development proposal must be considered upon its own individual merits based on the specific case and site circumstances to hand. Overall, the scheme accords with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise.

A condition confirming the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. For reasons that I have already identified above, conditions are reasonable and necessary to impose in relation to restricting the use to agriculture, the submission of a management plan, and the details and implementation of hardstanding. On the basis that the management plan and hardstanding conditions require details to be submitted and approved, I have imposed what I consider to be reasonable timeframes for compliance.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed such that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.