Appeal 6007268

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 traditional agricultural Dutch barn at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/03611/AGPA and the details submitted with it, including plan nos. 02 & 00317-0001-04.

The Council has referenced development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in its decision notice. The principle of development is established by the GPDO and the provisions of Schedule2, Part 6, Class A do not expressly or otherwise require determination of the appeal on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. However, I have had regard to the policies of the development plan and the Framework only insofar as they are material considerations relevant to the matters of prior approval specified in the conditions at paragraph A.2.(2)(i).

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

This includes a requirement that under paragraph A.2.(2), amongst other things, 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.

The Council’s case does not appear to raise an issue with the proposal meeting the requirements under paragraph A.1 and that it is permitted development. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to reach a different conclusion. Therefore, the main issue is whether prior approval should be granted having regard to matters of the siting, design and external appearance of the building.

The appeal site is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) and Landscape Character Area 15A, the Vale of [name]. Key characteristics of this landscape include a smooth gentle landform, and productive arable and pasture farmland with a strong pattern of hedgerows.

I saw that the field’s ground levels fell gently to the south with trees and hedgerows defining its boundaries to adjoining fields. With cladding to the roof and upper elements of the elevations, and concrete panelling to the lower sections, the proposed Dutch barn with a lean-to element and a limited amount of hardstanding around it, would reflect that of a modern functional agricultural building, which would not be an unexpected or unusual feature within this farming landscape.

Positioned towards the northeast corner of the field, the proposed building would be visible by users of [site address] . However, it would be partly screened by existing vegetation and trees along the site’s northern boundary and would not be a visually exposed position. Its modest height and gable end orientation would not result in a dominant addition when viewed from the road.

I recognise that the elevated position of the Vale of [name] allows for long distance views across the lowlands from upper slopes and the narrow nature of the vale, and the rural character of the pastoral lowlands below, raises the visual prominence of development.

Although the Council’s Cotswold Design Code (CDC) advises that new farm buildings should generally be integrated within existing farmsteads, Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO does not require an assessment of alternative locations. In determining this appeal, I must assess the proposal before me, rather than contemplate whether the proposed building could be sited elsewhere.

No specific long-distance views of the site have been brought to my attention by the Council. Representation received refers to views from Evenlode Valley, including the approach from Oddington. However, due to the moderate scale of the proposed building against the backdrop of trees, such long-distance views of it would be unlikely to draw attention and it would not appear as an incongruous feature within this sensitive landscape.

Whilst there is no evidence before me that the nearby trees are protected, I have not been presented with any compelling reason as to why they would be removed at a later date.

Concern has been raised in relation to the impact of external lighting associated with the proposed building on the ‘dark skies’ character of the CNL. However, no lighting is proposed as part of the appeal scheme before me.

For the above reasons, the proposal would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the CNL as well as seek to further its statutory purpose. It would be in accordance with Policies EN1, EN2, EN4 and EN5 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031, which collectively seek to promote the protection, conservation and enhancement of the historic and natural environment, including the natural beauty of the landscape, character and special qualities of the CNL. Moreover, the proposal is in accordance with the Framework in ensuring that development is sympathetic to local character as well as complying with the main objectives of the CDC. These are material considerations, as they relate to the siting, design and external appearance of the building.

Reference has been made to the consultation on the proposed revisions to the Framework. Whilst the revised draft is a material consideration, it is subject to change. I therefore attribute it very limited weight.

Representations have been made as to whether the proposed building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit, which did not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal.

The Supporting Statement (February 2025) sets out that the building would enable covered storage of hay where its production, and use as winter feed for sheep, takes place. The building would also provide storage for the machinery used for the production of hay.

Although there is another building located elsewhere on the holding, there is no other building on the parcel of land subject to the appeal scheme. Calculations of the expected hay baling output have been provided, including undercover space required for its storage as well as the types of machinery to be housed and associated manoeuvring space. Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of a [name] in the submission, as well as observations surrounding the space and location requirements, likely vehicular movements and alternative agricultural operations, I am satisfied that the need for the development has been demonstrated.

Whilst some discrepancies are noted in the appellant’s evidence, they are of a scale and nature that have not led me to a different conclusion. Similarly, security concerns with the building have not swayed me away from my findings.

The ‘reasonably necessary’ assessment does not carry with it any connotation of profit or business viability, and there is no substantiated evidence that the proposal would result in a building remaining unused, which could then be used for an alternative purpose.

Bringing all these factors together, I am satisfied that the proposed building is reasonably designed and commensurately sized for the purpose of storing hay and associated machinery. Consequently, the proposed building would be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

Development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO is permitted subject to conditions set out in paragraph A.2, including the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details and within 5 years of the approval date. For this type of development, the GPDO does not provide any specific authority for imposing additional conditions, including the removal of permitted development rights.

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