The agricultural barn enforcement appeal at Herridges Orchards near Newent, Gloucestershire, has failed after a barn was built approximately 90 metres away from the position shown on the approved agricultural prior approval plans. Inspector Jonathan Edwards dismissed the challenge on 10 November 2026, leaving Forest of Dean District Council’s demolition and restoration notice in force.
The incomplete building had blockwork walls, a timber structural frame and unfinished upper walls and roof. The appellant argued that moving it to lower ground answered local concerns about its original, more prominent position. The Inspector nevertheless found that a different location could not be treated as authorised merely because the design otherwise resembled the proposal submitted to the council.
The agricultural barn enforcement decision matters beyond this holding. Class A of Part 6 to the General Permitted Development Order can allow agricultural buildings without a full planning application, but its conditions tie the development to the submitted or approved details. Changing the location during construction can therefore remove the permitted development protection, even where the reason for doing so appears practical.
Why the agricultural barn enforcement appeal failed
The planning history began with a Class A prior approval application dated 16 April 2020. The council’s decision notice accepted the proposed general-purpose agricultural building under Part 6. It did not grant a roaming authorisation to build anywhere within the holding. The siting shown in the submitted or approved details remained part of the planning position.
During the enforcement appeal, the council produced aerial imagery showing that the building actually under construction stood about 90 metres south of the location in the 2020 submission. The appellant did not dispute the change. Instead, he described it as a relatively minor adjustment made in good faith after concerns were raised by Pauntley Parish Council about the elevated original location.
Inspector Edwards rejected that characterisation, describing the difference as a significant and material locational difference
. Part 6 Class A condition A.2(2)(v) requires development to follow the relevant approved or submitted details unless the local planning authority agrees otherwise in writing. No such written agreement had been established for the new position.
The agricultural barn enforcement outcome therefore turned on what was actually authorised, not whether the lower site might have been less visible. Planning Geek’s Class A agricultural buildings guide explains the prior notification procedure and why the submitted plans continue to matter after the initial council response.
Why the earlier correspondence did not save the barn
The appellant relied in part on correspondence from the council, including an email of 4 July 2023 stating that an officer’s investigation had not identified a breach at that time. The Inspector considered that material but found it was not written consent to construct the building in a substantially different position.
That distinction is important. An officer’s earlier view about enforcement, a discussion of possible options, or an acknowledgement of the reasons for a change does not necessarily amount to agreement under a specific GPDO condition. The evidence must establish the statutory permission relied upon, including any written variation allowed by its wording.
Nor did a previous planning appeal rescue the development. A separate application seeking permission for a building on this land, in an altered form, had already been dismissed on 3 December 2024 under appeal APP/P1615/W/24/3347827. The Inspector in the agricultural barn enforcement case treated that history as evidence that express permission for the structure now on site had not been secured.
Most importantly, the Inspector was deciding whether there was a breach of planning control, not selecting the most attractive position for a barn. The Inspector expressly declined to reconsider the planning merits of the earlier refusal, which fell outside the grounds of appeal being decided.
Enforcement grounds (b), (c) and (f) all failed
The enforcement notice, issued on 8 August 2025, alleged the erection of a building without planning permission. It required removal of the building, disconnection of services, clearance of debris and restoration of the affected area to grassed land. The notice allowed six calendar months for compliance after it took effect.
Ground (b) asks whether the alleged works have occurred. Here the unfinished building plainly existed. Photographs from both sides and the Inspector’s site visit established walls and a timber frame, even though doors, windows and roof works remained incomplete. Arguing that a building was permitted development did not answer whether it had physically been erected.
Ground (c) concerns whether the development amounts to a breach of planning control. Constructing the structure was a building operation requiring planning permission unless an available permission applied. Because the 90-metre change breached the Class A siting condition, the original Part 6 route could not authorise the works as built. The appellant had not demonstrated a lawful development certificate or other permission.
Finally, ground (f) challenges excessive remedial requirements. The Inspector found that removing the unauthorised structure and restoring the land would directly remedy the breach. The notice did not require a replacement barn, and there was no authorised alternative structure at that location to justify retaining part of the works.
Planning Geek’s enforcement appeal grounds guide explains the separate tests. The agricultural barn enforcement case is a useful example of why combining grounds does not convert a legal or factual appeal into a fresh application for permission.
Why a retrospective agricultural prior approval would not work
The appellant suggested that a further Class A application might authorise retention. Inspector Edwards pointed to another obstacle: the agricultural prior approval procedure requires an application before development begins. Retrospective permitted development approval is not available where the relevant right requires prior notification or approval before commencement. An application submitted after construction cannot retrospectively satisfy that pre-commencement requirement or turn a building erected outside the previously submitted location into authorised permitted development.
That does not mean retrospective planning permission is impossible. An applicant may, where the statutory restrictions permit, seek permission under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or pursue deemed permission through ground (a) in an enforcement appeal. Those are different routes from claiming retrospective prior approval under Part 6, and neither guarantees a favourable decision. Here, no suitable permission had been obtained for the building as constructed, and no ground (a) appeal was before the Inspector. The availability of a later section 73A application would also need to be considered against any existing enforcement notice and section 70C restrictions.
This procedural choice mattered. With no ground (a) before the Inspector, there was no opportunity in this decision to weigh arguments that the lower location reduced visual impact or better met local concerns. The agricultural barn enforcement appeal had to be determined on the statutory grounds actually pursued.
Farmers considering a change to the position of a Part 6 building should secure the correct written planning position before moving construction. An apparently small relocation can change what the council and neighbours were invited to assess in the prior approval process. The safe course is to stop and resolve the changed siting rather than assume the original paperwork stretches to cover it.
What the decision means for farm projects
The case also demonstrates the cost of relying on informal assurances. The reason for a proposed change may be sensible, particularly where a parish council objects to the original elevated position, but it does not follow that the altered works have the same permitted development status. Copies of the original location plan, approved details and any written agreement are central evidence.
The agricultural barn enforcement outcome should not be mistaken for a general ruling against agricultural buildings or their relocation. The finding was narrower and more useful: this partially built structure, in this location and on this evidence, was not covered by the earlier Class A procedure. The appeal failed on grounds (b), (c) and (f), and the enforcement notice was upheld.
The decision was issued by Inspector Jonathan Edwards on 10 November 2026 under appeal reference APP/P1615/C/25/3373377. The official Planning Inspectorate case record contains the appeal details. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. For the wider process, see Planning Geek’s guide to enforcement notices.
0 Comments