An agricultural barn appeal has been dismissed in Harrow after a proposed 1,500 square metre building failed the permitted development tests, despite the agricultural unit exceeding five hectares.
Inspector N Armstrong issued the decision on 27 October 2026 concerning Thrale Farm near Oxhey Lane in Pinner. The appellant wanted a substantial barn for hay and straw handling, machinery storage and related operations, using Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order.
The agricultural barn appeal matters because there is a distinction between qualifying for a particular permitted development class on paper and proving that the proposed building actually falls within it. The Inspector found two important evidential deficiencies while rejecting some other objections raised against the scheme.
Why the agricultural barn appeal failed
The holding was described as roughly 5.5 hectares in the application form, with slightly different figures elsewhere in the supporting documents. Its size was not disputed: the five-hectare threshold for Class A was met. That is only the first step. A building must also be on land used for agriculture for a trade or business and be reasonably necessary for the purposes of that agricultural unit.
The land looked like a grassed field, enclosed by hedges and trees, alongside other fields and sports facilities. A public footpath ran near one boundary. The appellant supplied Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs material, Rural Payments Agency parcel information and evidence of a Countryside Stewardship agreement. These records did not, by themselves, prove that commercial agricultural activity was being undertaken at the site.
There was also an invoice dated January 2026 for the sale of 200 hay bales. The Inspector recognised that this pointed towards a transaction, but found it insufficient to establish the nature and extent of an agricultural trade or business on the appeal land. Profitability was not the relevant test. Evidence that the land was actually being used for agriculture in a trading undertaking was.
That distinction makes this agricultural barn appeal useful to small agricultural businesses and advisers. Registration, stewardship agreements and photographs of grassland may support an application, but the decision shows why applicants should document the actual operation: cropping or grazing records, sales, machinery, land-management arrangements and the relationship between the proposed building and the working unit.
How the proposed building’s scale mattered
The dimensions were substantial: the proposed footprint was 60 metres by 25 metres, with eaves eight metres high and a ridge at 12 metres. The building was to accommodate hay, straw, tractors, balers, loaders and ancillary equipment. The agricultural barn appeal therefore raised the practical question of what such an operation could reasonably need on a unit of this size.
Inspector Armstrong said the evidence gave little indication of expected yields, the number of bales requiring storage, the building’s capacity relative to production, or the number and type of vehicles and machines it would house. The fact that a barn resembles modern agricultural infrastructure did not establish its necessity for this particular business.
The Inspector expressly explained: “The test is not one of ‘absolute’ necessity.” Nevertheless, the applicant bore the burden of proving that the development was reasonably necessary. Even assuming that the commercial-use requirement could be satisfied, the supporting operational detail was not sufficient to justify a building of this size.
An agricultural barn appeal involving permitted development must therefore be approached differently from a conventional planning application asking whether a building is acceptable in principle. The starting question is whether every statutory condition, limitation and restriction is met. Where a basic qualifying requirement fails, prior approval cannot make an otherwise ineligible development lawful.
What the Inspector accepted, and why costs were refused
The 1,500 square metre limit was a separate issue. On the corrected dimensions, the proposed footprint reached but did not exceed that threshold. The Inspector also found little evidence that the proposed excavations, foundations or groundworks would exceed what Class A allowed. Those aspects of the council’s case did not determine the outcome.
Nor did references to an apparently disputed access and bridge decide the agricultural barn appeal, because those matters were insufficiently connected to the proposed building in the application. The Inspector focused on the evidence relevant to the permitted development right, rather than turning the appeal into a general investigation of the holding.
A separate costs application by the appellant was also refused. The Inspector considered the council’s reasons and the applicant’s complaints about the request for supporting information, but concluded that unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary or wasted expense had not been shown. The appeal and costs decisions therefore reached the same overall result, though they applied different tests.
The decision illustrates why agricultural planning guidance and the permitted development framework need to be considered together. A field’s appearance, the size of a holding and a nominally compliant building footprint are not substitutes for evidence of a genuine farming undertaking and an adequately justified operational need.
Decision and further reading
Inspector N Armstrong dismissed appeal 6006380 against the London Borough of Harrow on 27 October 2026. A separate application for costs was refused. The quoted decision wording is Planning Inspectorate material available under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments