Appeal 6007454

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 the erection of an agricultural storage building at [address], [site address] , Stogumber, [name], Somerset, [postcode] in accordance with the application 3/31/25/013 and the details submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Location Plan (dated 28/7/25); and SC-002 (dated 3/9/25).

I have utilised the description of development as provided on the appellant’s appeal form and the Council’s decision notice.

The main issue is whether the proposed unit is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order (the GPDO) enables the erection of a building where it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

The appellant’s evidence sets out that the farm currently comprises a flock of 46 sheep. As part of their final comments, they have stated that the farming enterprise represents a profitable and viable business. It does not appear that I have any substantive evidence in this regard before me such as financial records of revenues and profit or loss. However, the Council has not sought to dispute the size of the flock. I have also had regard to the documents provided by the appellant, including livestock movement forms.

While 46 sheep is perhaps a small number of animals in agricultural terms, it seems highly unlikely to me that the appellant would keep that many animals, on what is a reasonably sized landholding, purely as a hobby. Having regard to that, and the written evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposed barn would be for genuine agricultural use as defined within section D.1 of the relevant part of the GPDO, rather than hobby farming as suggested by the Council.

The application form sets out that the proposed barn would be used for the storage of animal feed, husbandry equipment and machinery. The appellant’s statement of case also sets out that it would be used for housing sheep during lambing season. Based on these requirements, and the size of the landholding, I can see no reason to conclude that the size of the proposed barn would be too large for the amount of farming activity that is taking place. Indeed, based on the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that there is an essential need for the proposed barn. I note that the Council does not appear to suggest that the proposal would conflict with other elements of the GPDO. I can see no reason to disagree in that regard.

In so far as development plan policies are relevant to this appeal, I am also satisfied that there would be no conflict with Policies OC1, BD6, NH6 and NH13 of the West Somerset Local Plan, November 2016. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to restrict the provision of development within the open countryside and ensure that new developments, including agricultural buildings, preserve character and appearance and biodiversity.

The access to [address] is off a track that is also a public right of way. However, the access is already in use in association with the occupation of the residential dwelling and so I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect upon the public right of way.

The conditions section of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO sets out that the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details. However, for the purposes of certainty I have identified that relevant plans within the imposed condition. The timescales for undertaking the development are also set out clearly within the legislation.

The Council suggested that a condition be imposed to secure a landscaping scheme. However, having visited the site, I am satisfied that there is already sufficient planting to ensure that the barn would be adequately screened so as to soften views from public vantage points.

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.