Landowners in England will likely already know that if they want to build or extend an agricultural building for agricultural purposes on their farm, they can seek to rely on permitted development rights (“PDRs”). PDRs grant planning permission for developments that would otherwise require a successful, costly and time-consuming planning application.
A recent High Court case has highlighted the pitfalls of not considering the potential impact of the development on ancient woodland and listed buildings at the prior approval stage.
For farms of 5 hectares or more the relevant PDR for these types of developments is Class A in Part 6.
To rely on a PDR, applicants must ensure that the facts of the proposal align with the requirements of the PDR and must comply with the PDR restrictions and the planning conditions that will apply.
A key condition is that prior approval for design, appearance and siting must be sought from the local planning authority before starting work. The recent High Court decision of Rickards v East Hertfordshire District Council set out some practical takeaways when submitting a prior approval application.
The local planning authority gave prior approval in April 2024 for three large polytunnels on agricultural land of at least 5 hectares. A neighbour challenged the Council’s decision on various grounds, notably the Council’s failure to take account of the potential impact of the development on Bayford Wood (an ancient woodland) and on the setting of a nearby Grade II listed building.
The High Court concluded that the polytunnel’s impact on the listed building and ancient woodland were material considerations that must be addressed by the authority in their determination of the prior approval, so the court quashed the decision.
There are various practical implications of the Rickards decision for applicants seeking to rely on Class A Part 6 PDRs.
The key lesson is proactively to identify and address any nearby constraints when preparing prior approval submissions, including the presence of and impact on any heritage assets, conservation areas, or ancient woodland. For this, the prior approval application should be supported by the following:
A clear statement showing the applicant has identified the presence of and assessed the development’s impact on any proximate heritage assets (the listed building and its curtilage).
This should include analysis of the significance of the asset and its setting and, where relevant, how this has informed the development of the proposals. The level of detail should be proportionate to the asset’s importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on its significance. Planning Policy Guidance, the National Planning Policy Framework and advice provided by Historic England make clear that too much information is not welcome.
If a heritage building is close to the proposed agricultural building, consider either relocating it or appointing a heritage specialist to prepare the heritage statement and to maximise chances of securing prior approval.
According to Natural England’s ‘standing advice’ on ancient woodlands, it is advisable to obtain a specialist tree survey and an ecological survey to address the impact of proposed development on ancient woodland, depending on the level of impact.
A qualified arborist should be appointed to advise on the impact and propose mitigation measures to avoid and reduce harm on ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees.
The detail in the report should be proportional to the development and the proximity to the ancient woodland.
One administratively interesting aspect of this case was that the site notice alerting the public to the submission of the prior approval application had not been properly displayed which allowed the challenge to be made ‘out of time’. If a notice is required, it should be left in place for at least 21 days.
On the plus side, the claimant also raised the applicant’s failure to include appropriate plans to substantiate the agricultural unit was at least 5 hectares (a requirement for Class A PDRs). However, the court accepted that declarations of agricultural unit size (supported by a planning statement) were sufficient to establish eligibility under Class A and the officer did not need to carry out a site visit to satisfy themselves.
