- Decision
- dismissed, 21 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Bowyer
- Authority
- Reigate and Banstead (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6006496
- Application reference
- 25/00197/F
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Two agricultural buildings (storage of haylage, silage, maize, equipment; winter housing for sheep)
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside, ancient woodland
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(2), N6, TR6
- Development plan policies
- Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 NHE2, NHE3, DES1, TAP1
- Main issues
- ecology; character; highway safety; inappropriate development; BNG
Summary
Two agricultural barns on a farm in the Reigate and Banstead Green Belt. Dismissed. The barns were not inappropriate development: they were "for agriculture" under GB7(1)(a), and the Framework has no "reasonably necessary" test. But unresolved ecology (ancient woodland buffer, skylark) and unproven access visibility on a 50 mph A-road engaged S5(2) through the "should be refused" policies N6 and TR6. The modest benefits were substantially outweighed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
- GB7(1)(a): PASS. "the Framework does not specify any requirement that development for agriculture is 'reasonably necessary' … The scale of the buildings would appear to me to be generous relative to the suggested space requirements, but … [it] would be development for agriculture" (DL ¶32).
- Ecology / N6: FAIL. A single December survey visit was not robust for breeding birds; Circular 06/2005 applied (DL ¶7-9). The buildings sit partly within a 15 m ancient woodland buffer with no arboricultural evidence (DL ¶11-12).
- Highway safety / TR6: FAIL. Visibility splays of 2.4 x 160 m were not shown to be achievable; conditions were inappropriate if third-party land is involved (DL ¶22-23, ¶28).
- Character: limited, localised harm (DL ¶20). PD rights did not help: they were unavailable here, and PD is subject to prior approval in any event (DL ¶19).
- BNG. Credits were a realistic route; refusing on BNG is generally inappropriate (DL ¶38-40).
Planning balance
S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance, since agriculture is an S5 category. "part (2) of policy S5 indicates that the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed … include where the proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused … Policy N6 … In any event, I have identified that the proposal would fail to comply with Framework Policy TR6" (DL ¶44). The modest farm-diversification and food-production benefits were substantially outweighed (DL ¶46-47).
What made the difference
The Green Belt was not the problem, because agriculture is simply not inappropriate. The case turned on thin ecological and highway evidence. Under the 2026 Framework, failing any "should be refused" national policy (N6, TR6) feeds directly into S5(2) and makes approval very unlikely.
Transferable points
- GB7(1)(a) has no "reasonably necessary" test. Generously sized buildings still qualify if the use is agricultural (DL ¶32).
- A development can pass GB7 yet still fail through S5(2), where a "should be refused" policy (N6 irreplaceable habitat, TR6 highway safety) is breached (DL ¶44).
- A single winter survey visit is not robust evidence on breeding birds. Circular 06/2005 bars deferring surveys to conditions except in exceptional circumstances (DL ¶7-9).
- Visibility splays that may need third-party land cannot be left to condition (DL ¶22-23).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(a) | pass | storage of produce, sheep housing, equipment is "for agriculture"; Framework has no "reasonably necessary" test; generous size does not change category (DL 30-33) | |
| N6 | fail | buildings within 15 m ancient-woodland buffer; no arboricultural evidence; single December survey inadequate for skylark; cannot rule out deterioration (DL 5-14, 44) | |
| TR6 | fail | 2.4 x 160 m splays on 50 mph A217 not shown achievable within control; intensified use of the access (DL 21-28) | |
| DP3 | harm | limited | buildings set apart in the field with generous hardstanding; localised encroachment (DL 15-20) |
| S5(1) | fail | agriculture is an S5 category, but S5(2) is triggered by N6 and TR6 "should be refused" policies; modest rural-economy benefits substantially outweighed (DL 43-47) | |
| E4 | benefit | limited | farm viability and food production benefits modest given scale (DL 46) |
Key facts
- Wider site's former farm buildings converted to dwellings, so agricultural PD rights unavailable (DL 19)
- Appellant evidence suggests agricultural storage buildings can generate about 25 daily trips (DL 25)
- Net loss of 0.7 habitat units; BNG via credits accepted as capable of discharge (DL 35-40)
Sources
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.