Appeal 6007485

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 agricultural storage building at [site address] [site address] , Tarleton, Preston [postcode] ([name]: 343533, [name]: 421452) in accordance with the application 2025/0973/PNP and the details submitted with it including plan nos.: Location Plan; [name]. C18 [name]; and Proposed Floor Plan Drg No. C18 [name].

My site visit was scheduled as an access required site visit. Although it was not possible to proceed on that basis, I was nonetheless able to consider the main issues based on seeing the site and its surrounding context from public areas.

Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015 (“the GPDO”) allows for the erection of a building, which is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more. Additionally, to be permitted under Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, the development must also accord with further limitations and conditions.

Condition 2 (i) of paragraph A.2 includes the requirement for the developer to, before beginning the development, apply 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 considers that it has not been demonstrated that the agricultural land comprises an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more, and that there is a lack of evidence in respect of the farmstead or farming enterprise. The Council therefore contends that the proposal does not constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO. The Council also alleges that the proposed siting would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Accordingly, the main issues are: • whether the appeal proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, and; • if the proposal is permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, whether the siting of the building would be acceptable.

The appeal site relates to an area of land just off [site address] which forms part of a larger agricultural field extending over 7ha in size. It forms part of a larger agricultural landholding totalling around 35ha, which has been identified in the appellant’s evidence with reference to a series of land holding parcel plans.

For a building to be ‘reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit’, the structure itself and uses carried on within it must be reasonably necessary for the use of the land as an agricultural unit.

The appeal site generally has the appearance of farmland. At the time of my site visit there was no livestock on the immediate land, nor any evidence of farming activity. However, the appellant’s evidence is that the established enterprise involves sheep farming, with around 200 breeding ewes grazed across various parcels of land within the holding throughout the year. Rotational grazing is not uncommon, and not all farming enterprises are fortunate enough to have a farmstead, or a contiguous landholding. Moreover, there is no requirement within Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO for an agricultural holding to contain an existing farmstead.

The proposed portal steel framed building would be typically agrarian in appearance, constructed in lower-level metal cladding with partial timber cladding above and a composite panel sheet roof. As indicated on the proposed floor plan, the intended purpose of the building is to provide covered storage for feed and hay, and secure storage for farm machinery, such as trailers and a quad bike, as well a sheep handling equipment, water bowsers, electric fencing materials and hurdles. The modest size and configuration of the storage is necessary and proportionate to the sheep farming operation, particularly given there is no other internal storage on the wider landholding.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposed building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and the use of the land, and would be on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more. Accordingly, it would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO.

The proposed building would measure around 18m long by 13.7m wide with a 6m ridge height and would be located close to [site address] , towards the north-western corner of the site. As a result, it would be prominent when travelling from the east despite its siting at a slightly lower ground level. However, it would not be of an unusually large scale or discordant appearance for an agricultural building. Moreover, its visual prominence would be tempered by the extensive tree line on adjoining land. These existing trees would also largely screen the building in views along [site address] from the west. Its siting would therefore not appear incongruous in its typically rural agricultural setting.

The building would be sited away from the existing vehicular access from [site address] and I acknowledge the Council’s concern that a new track across the field would negatively impact on the open character of the surrounding area. However, as Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO only affords permitted development rights to works for the erection of a building, consideration of a new track, or area of hardstanding, falls outside the scope of this decision. I therefore conclude that the siting of the proposed building would be acceptable.

For the avoidance of doubt, any approval granted for development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO is subject to the conditions set out in paragraph A.2 including the time limits for when development must be carried out as set out at A.2 (2) (vi).

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted.