Appeal 6007097

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) permit 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.

This is subject to several limitations where such development is not permitted, listed under paragraph A.1, and subject to compliance with conditions, as set out under paragraph A.2. There is dispute between the main parties as to whether or not the proposal would exceed the limitations set out in paragraph A.1.(e) of Part 6, Class A of the GPDO. The main issues are therefore: • Whether the proposal would constitute permitted development with particular regard to the limitations set out in A.1.(e)(i) and (ii). • If the proposal is permitted development, whether or not prior approval is required having regard to matters of siting, design and external appearance of the proposed building.

The limitations set out in A.1.(e) state that development is not permitted by Class A if the ground area which would be covered by (i) any works or structure (other than a fence) for accommodating livestock or any plant or machinery arising from engineering operations would exceed 1,[address] metres; or (ii) any building erected or extended or altered by virtue of Class A, would exceed 1,[address] metres, calculated as described in paragraph D.1(2)(a) of this Part.

[name].1(2)(a) defines ground area as that which would be covered by the proposed development, together with the ground area of any building (other than a dwelling), or any structure, works, plant, machinery, ponds or tanks within the same unit which are being provided or have been provided within the preceding 2 years and any part of which would be within 90 metres of the proposed development. The term “work” is not defined in either the GPDO or the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). However, in Taylor & Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & Regions 2001 WL 825205, it was established that the creation of hardstanding could be a “work” for the purposes of D.1(2)(a), and so could be included in the area calculation.

With regard to the appeal decision cited, the Inspector made clear that their conclusions were specific to the case before them, details of which are not before me. While the Inspector considered that the private way and associated hardstanding should not be included in the relevant area calculation, this was because they were satisfied that those elements were not intended for the accommodation of livestock. In contrast, in this proposal the appellant has indicated that the proposed hardstanding would be used for the external storage of agricultural machinery, including tractors, trailers and other portable equipment used in the cultivation of the farmland.

Although such machinery would not be fixed to the hardstanding, it would be stored on and accommodated by the hardstanding, which itself would arise from engineering operations. As such, the hardstanding would constitute works for accommodating plant or machinery for the purposes of A.1.(e)(i). Accordingly, its area must be taken into account in applying the 1,[address] metre limitation set out in that provision.

The Council states that the proposal would cover a total area of approximately 8,[address] metres. No substantive evidence has been provided to dispute this figure. The appellant’s statement of case confirms that the proposed building would have a floor area of 1,488.[address] metres. It therefore follows that the associated hardstanding would exceed well beyond 1,[address] metres and would consequently exceed the limitation set out in paragraph A.1.(e)(i). In light of this, it is not necessary to consider compliance with paragraph A.1.(e)(ii), as failure to meet any one of the limitations means the proposal cannot constitute permitted development.

For these reasons, having regard to the specifics of this case, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO and would not constitute permitted development.

As the prior approval provisions under paragraph A.2 apply only where the proposal constitutes permitted development, it is not necessary to go on and consider whether prior approval would otherwise be required.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.