Part 6 (Agricultural buildings and operations) of Schedule 2 to the GPDO gives permitted development rights for three classes of development. Class A, which is concerned with operational development on agricultural units of five hectares or more, is subject to a degree of control by the local planning authority (“LPA”) over siting, design and external appearance as a result of the prior notification requirements set out therein.
In summary, where those requirements apply, exercise of the permitted development rights is only lawful where an application has been made to the LPA for a determination of whether it intends to exercise its right of prior approval of such matters, and the LPA has either given written notice that it does not so intend or it has actually granted approval. If the LPA fails within 28 days to make such a determination, or fails to notify the applicant of its determination, the exercise of the permitted development rights is also lawful. In both instances, a limited number of conditions set out in Class A are then automatically imposed.
In R (on the application of Lucchetti) v South Norfolk District Council EWHC 3557 (Admin) the LPA had chosen to exercise its right of prior approval in the case of the erection of a building on farm land to store agricultural machinery. It granted approval of the submitted siting, design and external appearance details, but that approval was set out in what purported to be a general planning permission containing conditions in a different form to those set out in Class A. The claimant, an adjoining owner, sought by means of judicial review to quash the planning permission on the ground that it was not lawful, the LPA having no power in these circumstances to impose conditions of its own.
The court accepted the claimant’s argument, although recognised that there might be cases where it would be permissible for the LPA to insist upon a section 106 agreement being entered into. However, it refused to quash the planning permission in the particular circumstances of the case, ordering instead that a substituted planning decision in terms according with the GPDO be placed on the planning register so that anyone with an interest in the land at any time could tell from the register what could and could not actually be done.
John Martin
