Planning & Design Practice Ltd successfully overturned two separate decisions (which ran concurrently with each other) to refuse planning permission for the erection of two agricultural buildings at the same remote farmstead, Long Meadows in Derbyshire Dales.
Appeal Statement of Cases were prepared by Planning & Design Practice’s Planning Team on behalf of the Appellant, against Derbyshire Dales District Councils decision to refuse the applications. The Council resolved to refuse planning permission for the proposed developments under delegated powers for the following reasons:
Appeal 1: The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the new building, which is remote from the applicant’s main farm buildings and land holding is justified or necessary to sustain the needs of the agricultural enterprise, in addition to the existing building at this location. As such, the development is considered to constitute unwarranted and encroaching development that is intrinsically harmful to the character and appearance of this part of the countryside contrary to Policies S4, PD1 and PD5 of the Adopted Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (2017) and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Appeal 2: Based on the information provided, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the new building, in addition to the existing building on site is necessary to sustain agriculture on the unit/holding and as such constitutes unwarranted and encroaching development that is intrinsically harmful to the character and appearance of this part of the countryside contrary Policies S4, PD1 and PD5 of the Adopted Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (2017) and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Council argued that the buildings were not necessary to sustain agriculture on the unit/holding when having regard to existing buildings on site. The Council further contended that no justification has been submitted to justify the siting of the building on this specific parcel of land, and therefore the building is not justified.
The applications and appeals were accompanied by a detailed assessment of our clients farming operations, as well as supporting letters from the National Farmers Union which reaffirmed the need for the additional agricultural buildings on site.
The Planning Inspector agreed with our assessment, stating:
“Whilst there is an existing storage building at the appeal site, it was clear from my observations on site that this building is near to its practical capacity for storage. The provision of a further storage building at the appeal site would ensure that more of the agricultural paraphernalia, such as machinery, feeds stuffs and fodder, can be stored inside rather than, as at the time of my visit, outside the existing building. This storage building would therefore also help support the agricultural business and its growth.”
The Inspector, when considering Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which supports rural development where it would enable the sustainable growth and expansion of businesses in rural areas including agricultural businesses, resolved to allow both appeals stating “it has been demonstrated that both proposals would be necessary to support and grow the existing agricultural business”.
If you have had planning permission refused or would like to discuss your options or chances at appeal, please get in contact for a free no obligation discussion.
Andrew Stock, Associate Director – Chartered town Planner, Planning & Design Practice Ltd.
