Case 3271731

Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, Going N of Chiddingly, See A location map, NR Lewes, BN8 6HF

Wealden District Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
9 November 2021
Authority
Wealden District Council
Inspector
Prentis D
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Other minor developments
Appellant
J&H Wilsdon Agriculture
Agent
J&H Wilsdon Agriculture
LPA reference
WD/2021/7007/AD
ONS LPA code
E07000065
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
14 September 2021

Summary AI

The appeal for a steel framed, timber clad building to support vineyard and sheep/land wilding work was dismissed due to the land not being currently used for agriculture. The land's history of agricultural use and the advanced stage of the sale process also contributed to this decision. Other concerns about the siting and design of the proposal were not considered due to the main issue being resolved in the inspector's favor.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, Going N of Chiddingly, See A location map, NR Lewes, BN8 6HF — Wealden District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 October 2021 by David Prentis BA, BPl, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 November 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/C1435/W/21/3271731 Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, going north of Chiddingly BN8 6HF • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under a development order. • The appeal is made by J & H Wilsdon Agriculture against the decision of Wealden District Council. • The application Ref WD/2021/7007/AD, dated 12 February 2021, was refused by notice dated 17 March 2021. • The development proposed is described as erection of a steel framed, timber clad building to provide facilities for staff for vineyard and sheep/land wilding work, machinery and produce storage, workshop. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. The description of development set out above is taken from the application form. It differs from the shorter description used in the appeal form. That said, I do not consider that these differences are significant in the context of this appeal. 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, Going N of Chiddingly, See A location map, NR Lewes, BN8 6HF — Wealden District Council — Appeal Decision The appellant has drawn attention to an appeal decision1 in which the Inspector concluded that there was no power under the prior approval provisions for agricultural buildings to determine whether the proposed development would fall within the description of the relevant class of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GDPO). In reaching that view, the Inspector had regard to case law in Marshall2. However, subsequent case law3 has established that it is lawful for a Council to decide whether or not a proposal such as this falls within the description of the relevant class, which is what Wealden District Council has done in this case. Main issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposal is within the scope of the development described in Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GDPO. 1 APP/X1545/W/20/3254349 2 R (oao Marshall) v East Dorset DC and Pitman [2018] EWHC 226 (Admin) 3 New World Payphones Ltd v Westminster City Council [2019] EWCA Civ 2250 and R (oao Smolas) v Herefordshire Council [2021] EWHC 1663 (Admin) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, Going N of Chiddingly, See A location map, NR Lewes, BN8 6HF — Wealden District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/21/3271731 Reasons 5. Class A of Part 6 of the GPDO makes provision 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. There is no dispute that the land holding, of which the appeal site forms a part, is in excess of 5 hectares. The appellant intends to establish an enterprise that would include viticulture on the most suitable land, with the rest of the land (including areas of woodland) being managed in ways that would promote wildlife. 6. The terms “agricultural land” and “agricultural unit” are defined within Part 6 of the GDPO: • "agricultural land" means land which, before development permitted by this Part is carried out, is land in use for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business, and excludes any dwellinghouse or garden; • "agricultural unit" means agricultural land which is occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture…. 7. The landholding has the appearance of farmland, comprising open grassland interspersed with woodland. At the time of my visit, there was no evidence of any agricultural activity taking place.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, Going N of Chiddingly, See A location map, NR Lewes, BN8 6HF — Wealden District Council — Appeal Decision To my mind that factor is not determinative on its own because some agricultural activities may be intermittent, for example if livestock is moved elsewhere for a time. It is also necessary to have regard to the written evidence. The appellant’s statement of case makes clear that the proposed building would support the new enterprise described above. It is stated that an offer for the purchase of the land has been accepted. However, it is not suggested that the transfer of ownership has taken place or that the appellant is currently carrying out any activity on the land, agricultural or otherwise, or that the land is currently occupied by the appellant. 8. The appellant’s site ownership certificates confirm that notices have been served on two persons who were owners of part of the land and on one agricultural tenant (Barn Farm Estate Management). The appellant states that, historically, the sheep that were kept on the land were taken off in winter because there was no building. Whilst that may be so, there is no evidence from Barn Farm Estate Management or the appellant that the land is still in its previous use for agriculture for the purposes of a trade or business.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, Going N of Chiddingly, See A location map, NR Lewes, BN8 6HF — Wealden District Council — Appeal Decision Having regard to the lack of such evidence, together with the advanced stage the sale process has reached and what I saw on site, it appears to me to be likely that any agricultural activities formally carried out by the agricultural tenant have ceased. 9. Whilst the subject land may well have been agricultural land in the past, the evidence before me indicates that it is not currently agricultural land as that term is defined for the purposes of Class A. It follows that the proposal cannot benefit from the permitted development rights granted by Class A of Part 6. Other matters 10. The Council also has concerns about the siting and design of the proposal. However, in view of my findings on the main issue, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those matters. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, Going N of Chiddingly, See A location map, NR Lewes, BN8 6HF — Wealden District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C1435/W/21/3271731

Page 3 · Chunk 6 Inspector

Barn Farm, Gateway on left 300 metres up Parsonage Lane, Going N of Chiddingly, See A location map, NR Lewes, BN8 6HF — Wealden District Council — Inspector https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Green belt
Against appellant
¶4

Whether the proposal is within the scope of the development described in Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GDPO, which makes provision for the erection of a building reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture on agricultural land.

Flood risk
Neutral
¶null

The inspector's main concern was the land not being currently used for agriculture, which meant the proposal could not benefit from permitted development rights.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
GDPO 6, Class A
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 9 November 2021 under the Open Government Licence.