Laminate flooring and downlighters were not enough to defeat a Green Belt barn appeal at Sky Farm, where an Inspector found that sheep breeding, lambing and storage supported the building’s agricultural purpose.
Bromley Council had questioned whether the barn at New Years Lane, Knockholt, was genuinely agricultural. Photographs of groups of children and the building’s interior fittings added to its concerns.
But the actual use persuaded Inspector C Shearing to allow two retrospective planning appeals on 24th September 2026: one for the barn and another for adjoining hardstanding. The council nevertheless escaped paying the appellant’s costs.
Why the Green Belt barn counted as agriculture
Bromley’s doubts went beyond appearances. It questioned the building’s layout and ventilation, laminate flooring throughout and downlighters. Photographs of children’s activities, a mobile home on the wider site and the absence of evidence of formal agricultural registrations also featured in the dispute.
Virginia Harii, of Sky Farm Limited, supplied details of a business grazing and breeding pedigree sheep, with plans to increase livestock numbers. The submitted drawings showed hay and equipment storage, a workshop and a breeding area, with further storage on a mezzanine.
Shearing visited on 22nd September 2026. The farming account was consistent with the findings of an earlier Inspector in 2022 and with the new site observations.
The Inspector acknowledged that the Green Belt barn incorporated “features more akin to a domestic setting”, but was not persuaded that the fittings or ventilation would prevent agricultural use.
“I am satisfied that, overall, it is development for agriculture.”
There was insufficient detail about the event involving children to displace the stronger evidence of agricultural use. Crucially, the permission would authorise the development described in the application and drawings, not every activity photographed on the farm.
Any separate enforcement issue concerning a children’s camp or other uses remained for Bromley. Neither the mobile home nor the missing registration evidence persuaded Shearing to reject the barn’s agricultural purpose.
Barn and hardstanding pass different Green Belt tests
Accepting the agricultural purpose was decisive for the Green Belt barn. It brought the proposal within the NPPF’s agricultural exception, without a requirement to demonstrate very special circumstances. Shearing found no separate test of operational need in the relevant national or local policies.
The hardstanding required a different assessment. It wrapped tightly around the barn, appearing as a base to the structure, rather than spreading widely across the holding. Trees and its position back from New Years Lane limited views.
Plant and equipment were present during the visit. Vehicles could have a greater effect on openness, the Inspector accepted, but their presence would be temporary and close to a building where activity was reasonably expected. The hard surface was found to preserve openness and avoid conflict with Green Belt purposes.
Both schemes also included provisions to support an employee with disabilities. Shearing recognised that benefit, but did not need to rely on it because the proposals already complied with the development plan.
No extra conditions imposed
Bromley suggested conditions for the Green Belt barn and hardstanding, but none survived the Inspector’s assessment of whether they were necessary.
The barn’s rural appearance and thick roadside tree belts meant extra screening was not justified. Shearing also rejected a woodland condition survey and a biodiversity-enhancement condition for which no policy reason had been identified.
For the hardstanding, the council had not substantiated a need for a surface-water drainage condition. Its limited scale and position within an otherwise greenfield site did not persuade the Inspector that it would increase flooding elsewhere.
The permissions are retrospective approvals of the submitted agricultural schemes. They are not decisions that the development qualified under the separate agricultural permitted development rules.
Bromley loses the appeals but avoids a costs award
Sky Farm sought full costs against Bromley over both refusals. Those applications failed, despite the successful planning appeals.
Shearing found that officers had recognised the agricultural exception and explained why they considered it did not apply. Their assessment of openness was adequate and detailed, and they did not need separate technical reports to substantiate those planning judgements.
The domestic fittings and photographs of other activity, taken together, gave the council reason to doubt the building’s purpose. The costs decision states:
“This did not amount to unreasonable behaviour.”
The earlier 2022 appeal findings did not oblige Bromley to assume that the same circumstances still existed. Its treatment of the prior approval history, refused lawful development certificates and possible alternative Green Belt exceptions was also found to be reasonable and explained.
The distinction leaves Sky Farm with permission to retain the Green Belt barn and hardstanding, but without an award requiring Bromley to meet its appeal expenses. The Inspector disagreed with the council’s conclusions, not with its entitlement to investigate the evidence.
Read the primary decisions: Sky Farm appeals 6007338 and 6007340 and the separate costs decision. Application references: 25/04473/FPA and 25/04474/FPA.
0 Comments