# 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 - **Tags:** s5-1-a, agricultural-building, agricultural-need-not-shown, retrospective, fallback-not-reliable, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, heritage-harm-decisive, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **S5(1)(a): fail.** development for agriculture is a listed category and the Framework does not require trade/business or reasonable necessity, but lacking justification the benefits are unclear and limited; substantially outweighed (DL 51-52) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** low-level less-than-substantial harm to settings of Grade II Volvens Farm House and barn through loss of open rural setting and screening; limited public benefits (DL 33-43) - **HE4: fail.** no clear and convincing justification for the harm (DL 37, 42) - **N2: harm.** loss of openness and undeveloped character in AGLV/Countryside Beyond the Green Belt; national policies on landscape character and natural beauty cited (DL 25-29, 52) - **E4: benefit (limited weight).** rural-business support unclear without evidence of agricultural trade or business (DL 38) - **TR6: pass.** parking/turning adequate; 20 mph road (DL 44-46) ## 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) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006697 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6ba65b1d-ce27-4c09-b98b-aea68612f4e2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006697.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.