A proposed agricultural produce and machinery store in Cheshire has failed under Part 6 after an Inspector found both that its reasonable necessity had not been fully demonstrated and that a nearby helipad brought an unusual 3 metre height restriction into play.
Inspector C Evans dismissed appeal 6009697 at land off Chelford Lane, Over Peover, Knutsford on 30th September 2026. The proposal was for a general-purpose produce and machinery store on an agricultural unit exceeding five hectares.
The decision is unusual because the building did not fail only on agricultural need. Both sides agreed it was within 3 kilometres of a helipad and over 3 metres high. The dispute was whether the helipad met the GPDO definition of an aerodrome.
Two separate Part 6 tests caused the appeal to fail
Part 6 Class A grants permitted development rights for specified agricultural development on agricultural units of five hectares or more, provided the detailed limitations and conditions are met. The works must be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.
The appeal site formed part of an agricultural unit in two parts. The proposed building would be on land with no existing agricultural buildings, physically separated from the established farmyard and buildings by Chelford Lane.
That separation did not, by itself, prevent Part 6 Class A from applying. But the agricultural justification still had to be demonstrated.
The proposed store was intended for hay and agricultural maintenance equipment. The appellant supplied details of the storage area required, and the Inspector recorded that those figures correlated with the size of the proposed building. Cheshire East Council did not dispute that calculation.
The problem was the next step. Existing buildings already stood in the farmyard, and the appellant said they were at capacity for hay, agricultural machinery and livestock during the winter.
The Inspector considered that the evidence did not go far enough to show why those buildings could not be used for the proposed storage.
She expressly recognised that the Class A test is not one of absolute necessity.
However, she added that “the onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that the requirements are met”. On the evidence before her, it had not been fully demonstrated that the existing buildings were unsuitable.
That finding is consistent with the practical lesson from the recent Alkham Part 6 appeal.
The GPDO does not demand a rigid profitability test or proof that there is literally no alternative. But applicants still need evidence connecting the scale and purpose of a proposed building to the agricultural operation.
The helipad brought the 3 metre aerodrome rule into play
The second reason for dismissal was more unusual. Paragraph A.1(f) of Class A says development is not permitted where the height of any part of a building, structure or works within 3 kilometres of the perimeter of an aerodrome would exceed 3 metres.
Outside that 3 kilometre zone the normal Class A height limit is 12 metres. Within it, the restriction is therefore capable of excluding an otherwise modest agricultural building.
There was no dispute about the measurements in this Part 6 appeal. Both sides agreed that the site was within 3 kilometres of the helipad and that the proposed building would exceed 3 metres.
Everything turned on whether the helipad came within the statutory meaning of an aerodrome.
The definition requires two stages to be read together.
The Air Navigation Order 2016 defines an aerodrome broadly, including land or space designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for aircraft to land and depart. It expressly includes places used by aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically.
Article 2 of the GPDO then requires the aerodrome to fall within one of its listed categories.
Those categories include an aerodrome licensed under the Air Navigation Order, a Government aerodrome and certain aircraft manufacturing or maintenance sites.
They also include aerodromes used for specified public transport or aerial work, and older sites identified to the Civil Aviation Authority for inclusion in the UK Aerodrome Index.
Cheshire East told the Inspector that the business operating the helipad was fully licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The licence itself had not been placed before her, but she said: “I have no reason to doubt them.” She went on to treat the helipad as licensed under the Air Navigation Order 2016.
That was enough to engage paragraph A.1(f). Because the proposed store exceeded 3 metres in height, it fell outside the dimensional limits of Part 6 at this location.
This is not a ruling that every private helipad is an aerodrome
The decision needs a little care before it is applied elsewhere. It is not authority for the proposition that every field used by a helicopter, every private landing area or every marked helipad automatically activates the 3 kilometre restriction.
First, the place has to satisfy the Air Navigation Order definition of an aerodrome. Secondly, it must also fall within at least one of the categories in the GPDO definition.
In this Part 6 appeal, the decisive evidence was the Council’s statement about licensing. The Inspector accepted it despite not being given the licence itself.
For agricultural applicants relying on Part 6, however, the point is worth checking early. A nearby airfield is obvious on a map; a smaller private or commercial helipad may be much less so.
If a qualifying aerodrome is within 3 kilometres, the 3 metre limit can make a conventional agricultural building impossible under Class A before siting, design and external appearance are even considered.
The current Part 6 legislation should therefore be checked alongside the factual status of any nearby aviation site rather than assuming that only conventional airports matter.
Previous Cheshire East approvals did not change the result
The appellant referred to two earlier applications for agricultural buildings away from the main farm unit. The Inspector did not need to decide whether those examples assisted because she had already found that the proposal fell outside the scope of the GPDO.
She was also shown four Cheshire East prior approval cases for agricultural buildings said to be within 3 kilometres of the same helipad. Again, there was too little detail to establish that the cases were directly comparable or materially the same.
The Inspector noted that she was not bound by earlier decisions of the Council and had to determine this appeal on its own merits.
That is particularly important where an earlier application may have been made on different evidence, or where the status of the nearby aerodrome was not examined in the same way.
What the Part 6 appeal means in practice
This Part 6 appeal gives agricultural applicants two separate evidence checks.
The first is familiar: demonstrate why the building is reasonably necessary for the agricultural operation, including why existing buildings do not meet the need.
The second is easier to overlook: check the location against the full list of Class A limitations, including qualifying aerodromes within 3 kilometres.
For the reasonable necessity case, a stronger Part 6 submission will normally identify the use and capacity of existing buildings, the amount of hay or produce to be stored and the machinery requiring cover.
Seasonal livestock requirements may also matter. The evidence should explain why the proposed building’s size and location match those operational needs.
Simply saying that existing sheds are full may not be enough if the decision-maker cannot see the evidence behind it.
The helipad issue is narrower but potentially decisive. Where there is an aviation site nearby, applicants should establish what it is, how it is used and whether it falls within the GPDO definition before spending time on a scheme that exceeds 3 metres.
In Over Peover the two issues were independent. Even if the appellant had produced stronger evidence of reasonable necessity, the height restriction would still have prevented this building from qualifying under Part 6 on the Inspector’s findings.
Equally, the helipad point did not remove the need to justify the agricultural building in the first place.
The result is a useful reminder of how Part 6 works in practice.
Agricultural permitted development can be generous, but it is a tightly defined planning permission. A proposal must satisfy the agricultural purpose test and every applicable limitation before the prior approval questions of siting, design and external appearance are reached.
0 Comments