A Part 6 agricultural building does not need a profitable farming business before the GPDO can apply. An Alkham appeal shows that the trade or business requirement is judged from the evidence as a whole, not by demanding formal accounts or a particular profit threshold.
The proposal at Uplands Farm was for a 30.5 metre by 15.225 metre agricultural barn to care for ewes in lamb and sheep. Dover District Council refused prior approval, but the Inspector found the agricultural evidence sufficient and allowed the appeal.
Appeal 6009974 was allowed on 18th September 2026. A separate application for a full award of costs against the council was refused.
Agriculture and Part 6 are not the same legal test
This appeal follows closely after the Clophill agricultural use appeal, but the two decisions answer different questions.
Clophill showed that land can be in agricultural use within section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 without agriculture being carried on commercially. That did not mean Part 6 rights were available.
Alkham starts at the next stage. For Part 6, the GPDO defines agricultural land as land already in use for agriculture and used for the purposes of a trade or business. The question was whether the evidence at Uplands Farm met that additional requirement.
What evidence supported the Part 6 agricultural building
The holding extended to about 13 hectares, mostly permanent grassland. The appellant had bought the farm relatively recently and intended to develop the agricultural operation.
The evidence included an environmental stewardship arrangement with Natural England, reseeded grazing fields, agricultural fencing, plans for rotational grazing and silage, invoices for additional ewes, sheep on the land, and an extensive list of agricultural vehicles and machinery.
The Inspector also had evidence of a grazing tenancy agreement. Taken together, this went well beyond simply describing the land as agricultural on an application form.
Profitability was not a rigid Part 6 test
The evidence did not include commercial information showing profitability. The Inspector did not treat that omission as decisive.
Paragraph D.1 requires agriculture to be carried on for the purposes of a trade or business, but the GPDO does not prescribe a minimum turnover, profit figure or set of formal accounts that must be produced.
The Inspector considered that the assessment should rest on several factors. In this case, the evidence of livestock, purchases, grazing arrangements, stewardship work, machinery and the developing farming operation was persuasive even without accounts demonstrating profit.
That does not mean financial evidence is irrelevant. Where the rest of the evidence is thin, business records may be important. The point is that there is no rigid profitability test written into Part 6.
Reasonable necessity can take realistic growth into account
A Class A building must also be reasonably necessary for agriculture within the unit.
The Inspector rejected the idea that the building had to be justified only by the agricultural activity already taking place at the date of the application. The GPDO contains no requirement that a proposed building must accommodate only the existing level of activity.
The size of the barn was therefore capable of being justified partly by realistic growth in the sheep enterprise. The appellant relied on space requirements for pregnant ewes and lambs, along with areas for bonding after birth, quarantine and straw storage.
On the evidence before him, the Inspector accepted that the proposed size and scale were reasonably necessary for the intended agricultural operation.
A serious 400 metre point in the Alkham decision
The proposed building was within 400 metres of protected buildings. The Inspector treated the livestock issue through condition A.2(1)(a) and paragraph D.1(3). He recorded that the existing buildings were unsuitable and, because the new barn was intended for ewes giving birth and newly born animals, concluded that the D.1(3) circumstances applied.
There is, however, a separate statutory provision which needs to be kept distinct. Paragraph A.1(i) says Class A does not permit development which includes the erection or construction of a building used or to be used for accommodating livestock where it is within 400 metres of the curtilage of a protected building.
That distinction was considered by the High Court in R (Marshall) v East Dorset District Council [2018] EWHC 226 (Admin). Mrs Justice Lang held that the D.1(3) exception attached to condition A.2(1)(a) could not simply be read into the separate A.1(i) restriction. A 2023 Inspectorate decision at Green Butts Farm, appeal APP/R0660/W/22/3309621, applied the same distinction.
The Alkham decision does not appear to address A.1(i) or Marshall. Planning Geek therefore reports the Inspector’s conclusion, but does not treat this appeal as establishing that the D.1(3) exception makes a new livestock building within 400 metres permitted development. Practitioners should check A.1(i), A.2(1)(a) and D.1(3) separately.
Siting, design and the Kent Downs National Landscape
The proposed barn would sit on flatter ground close to Alkham Valley Road. Mature roadside hedging would screen much of the building, and natural timber cladding was considered appropriate to the rural setting.
The site lies within the Kent Downs National Landscape. The Inspector found no harm to the distinctive landscape and concluded that the siting, design and external appearance were acceptable.
Why the costs application failed
The appellant sought a full award of costs, arguing among other things that the council had not carried out a formal site visit and had been inconsistent with earlier decisions at the farm.
The Inspector refused costs. The council was entitled to reassess whether the evidence was current and sufficient at the time of this application. Although the appeal was allowed, the disagreement remained a matter of planning judgment rather than unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary expense.
What the Part 6 agricultural building appeal means in practice
The useful sequence is now particularly clear. First establish whether the land use is agriculture. Then check whether the separate Part 6 requirements are met, including the agricultural-unit threshold and the trade or business requirement. Finally, justify why the particular building is reasonably necessary.
For the trade or business question, evidence should be considered in the round. Accounts can help, but Part 6 does not impose a simple profitability threshold. Evidence of livestock, land management, purchases, grazing agreements, machinery and a credible developing operation may all matter.
Our guide to Class A agricultural buildings explains the wider Part 6 restrictions and prior approval procedure.
Appeal decision: Appeal 6009974, Uplands Farm, Alkham
Costs decision: costs application relating to appeal 6009974
Report published: 20th September 2026
0 Comments