Land adjacent to Woodstock House, Mole Street, Ockley (barn)

Decision

dismissed, 15 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: J Bowyer

Authority

Mole Valley (South East)

Appeal reference

6006697

Application reference

MO/2025/1071

Procedure

written representations

Development

Retrospective permission for an agricultural storage barn built not in accordance with a Class A Part 6 prior notification

Site context

open countryside, valued landscape, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(a), HE4, HE6

Development plan policies

Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN2, EC6, EN4, EN6, EN8, INF1, INF2

Main issues

character and appearance; setting of listed buildings; parking

Summary

Retrospective permission for a hay and machinery barn built on a small field parcel near two Grade II listed farm buildings at Ockley. It had been built differently from its Class A prior-notification scheme. Dismissed. The appellant never showed that agriculture on the site was a trade or business, or that the barn was reasonably necessary, so the S5(1)(a) agriculture benefits were "unclear" and limited. Low-level harm to the listed buildings' setting and to the rural landscape substantially outweighed them.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties addressed the 2026 Framework in written comments (DL ¶7).
• Character (local plan EN2/EC6): FAIL. Agricultural need was not shown. As a building, though, the barn "would assimilate suitably with its rural context" if the use had been justified (DL ¶¶13–15, 27–29).
• Fallback: limited weight. The barn as built is not PD because it departs from the notified details, and "The Council's determination ... that prior approval was not required does not certify ... that development would inevitably accord with all aspects of Class A" (DL ¶17). There was doubt that the PA scheme was still a realistic fallback (DL ¶¶19–20, 49).
• Heritage — HE4/HE6: FAIL. There is no historic functional link, but the field's openness "would add to the rural quality of the area around the listed buildings, and in doing so, it makes some contribution to their significance" (DL ¶33). Harm "at a low level" still "attracts considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶37). There was no "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶42).
• Appellant's reliance on the 2026 Framework rejected. "the proposal would not use previously developed land, reuse an existing building or provide additional residential accommodation" (DL ¶40).

Planning balance

Development plan first (conflict with EN2, EN4, EN6, EN8), then S5 as a cross-check: "while the Framework does not specifically require that development for agriculture is for the purposes of a trade or business or shown to be reasonably necessary ..., the absence of such justification in this case means that I consider the benefits of the development for agriculture to be unclear and the weight that I afford them is limited" (DL ¶51). "the limited benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the cumulative adverse effects. Policy S5 of the Framework does not therefore indicate that the development should be approved" (DL ¶52).

What made the difference

There was no evidence of a real agricultural business and the building was impractical for its stated use. That left the S5(1)(a) category with little weight, and even low-level harm to Grade II settings was enough to defeat it. With evidence of a trading holding and a barn sized to fit its function, the S5(1)(a) benefit would have carried more, and the character objection largely fell away (DL ¶27). The heritage harm would then have been set against real agricultural benefits.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(a) "agriculture" has no Framework trade/business or reasonable-necessity test. Without such evidence, though, the benefits are "unclear" and get limited weight in the substantially-outweighed balance (DL ¶51).
• Open undeveloped land with no historic functional link to a listed farmstead can still add to significance through the rural setting, and low-level setting harm carries "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶¶33, 37).
• A "prior approval not required" determination is not a certificate of lawfulness. A barn built differently from the notified details is not PD, and the fallback weight falls away (DL ¶¶16–20).
• Appellants' 2026 Framework submissions will be tested for accuracy (e.g. claimed PDL or reuse) (DL ¶40).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Small parcel, not even the whole field; claimed 14 ha DEFRA-registered holding not evidenced (DL 13)
• Barn has an inaccessible low first floor and small doors, which raises doubt that it is functional for hay and machinery (DL 14)
• As built, differs from the Class A Part 6 prior notification (form, eaves, access), so is not PD; fallback given limited weight (DL 16-20, 49)
• Site in Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and AGLV (not Green Belt) (DL 9)

Related decisions

• PINS-6011498

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.