Raja Farm, Whalley Old Road, Langho

Decision

dismissed, 3 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: R Hitchcock

Authority

Ribble Valley (North West)

Appeal reference

APP/T2350/C/25/3374492

Procedure

written representations

Development

Enforcement appeal (ground (a)): timber building claimed for agriculture (poultry/tractor store) and a CCTV pole with solar panel; access barred under s174(2A)

Site context

green belt, open countryside

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB6(2), GB7(1)(a)

Development plan policies

Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2008-2028 Key Statement EN1, DMG1, DMG2

Main issues

inappropriate development; agricultural exception; character and appearance; VSC

Summary

Enforcement notice against a timber building and a CCTV pole on Green Belt land at Langho. The appellant said the building was used for agriculture (a small poultry and tractor store) and so was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(a). The inspector found the claim unevidenced: the building held domestic and garden items. The notice was corrected and upheld, and the deemed permission refused.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "the Green Belt and design policies that are relevant to this appeal have not materially changed and there was no need, therefore, to invite the parties to make further submissions" (DL ¶4).
• GB7(1)(a) agriculture: FAIL. "at the time of my site inspection there was no fowl, poultry or livestock present … the planting and mowing of the western area of the site appeared typically domestic in scale and character" (DL ¶17). "The maintenance of land is not a land use … the development has not been shown to meet any of the listed exemptions in Policy GB7 … and the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (DL ¶20).
• Character: harm. "As an isolated structure bordered by domestic style fencing, the design and appearance appear incongruous" (DL ¶24). The recycled-lamppost CCTV pole "stands out as a prominent singularity with unnecessarily excessive height" (DL ¶25).

Planning balance

GB6(2): substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus character harm. The rural economy and smallholding arguments got limited weight because no agricultural enterprise was shown (DL ¶28). "very special circumstances have not been demonstrated" (DL ¶30).

What made the difference

Evidence of actual agricultural use. The site visit found a domestic garden building rather than a farm store, and the appellant had already been told (refusal 3/2025/0454) that such evidence was needed. With livestock, feed and working equipment present, the GB7(1)(a) exception could have applied.

Transferable points

• The GB7(1)(a) agriculture exception needs evidence of actual agricultural use, and the inspector will test the claim against what is on site (DL ¶17–20).
• "The maintenance of land is not a land use" (DL ¶20).
• Some inspectors treat the 2026 Green Belt and design policies as materially unchanged and do not re-consult (DL ¶4).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Site on a raised, prominent brow in open upland pasture, visible from rights of way
• Inspector's site visit found no fowl or livestock, no feed, no tractor access; domestic items and seating inside
• Earlier application 3/2025/0454 refused for insufficient evidence of an agricultural exception
• Not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework because Green Belt and design policies "have not materially changed" (DL 4)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate casework portal
• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate casework portal

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.