# Breckon Hill, Lowgate, Hexham (agricultural shed)

- **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes
- **Authority:** Northumberland (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007219
- **Application reference:** 25/03689/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective agricultural storage shed next to Breckon Hill House
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(a)
- **Development plan policies:** Northumberland Local Plan 2022 STP1, STP8, ECN13, ECN14, QOP1, QOP2, QOP4, ENV1, ENV3, ENV4, Hexham NP 2021 HNP1, HNP2
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development, open countryside, character
- **Tags:** not-inappropriate, agricultural-building, retrospective, np-defers-to-national-gb-policy, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
Retrospective agricultural storage shed for small-scale sheep keeping in the Northumberland Green Belt. Allowed. The shed was a building "for agriculture" under GB7(1)(a), which does not require an established farm business, so it was not inappropriate. Because it complied with the NP's Green Belt policy, it also gained open-countryside support through LP STP1(h).

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "the changes to the Framework do not alter the substance of the main issues in this appeal or prejudice either party" (DL ¶2).
- **GB7(1)(a): PASS.** "Policy GB7 of the Framework refers to buildings for agriculture. It does not require that such buildings serve an established agricultural business or enterprise" (DL ¶7). The modest scale and sub-optimal siting "do not alter my finding" (DL ¶8).
- **Openness.** "Given my findings that the appeal development is not inappropriate development, by definition it does not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes" (DL ¶10).

## Planning balance
No VSC balance. The scheme accords with the development plan as a whole and there is no conflict with national decision-making policies (DL ¶21).

## What made the difference
Evidence of genuine agricultural use: sheep on the land, and stored equipment and feed. There was no evidence of any other use, and a condition could tie the building to agriculture.

## Transferable points
- GB7(1)(a) does not require an established agricultural business (DL ¶7).
- Development that is not inappropriate is treated as having, by definition, no adverse impact on openness (DL ¶10).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(a): pass.** building for agriculture; GB7 does not require an established agricultural business or enterprise; agricultural-only use secured by condition (DL 5-9)
- **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so by definition no adverse impact on openness or purposes; VSC not needed (DL 10)
- **DP3: neutral.** modest building seen with existing group; no character harm (DL 15-17)
- **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of listed Breckon Hill Farmhouse (DL 18)

## Key facts
- Shed stores a tractor, feed and fencing for small-scale sheep keeping on adjoining land; sheep present at the site visit
- Council argued there was no established agricultural enterprise
- NP Policy HNP1 defers to national Green Belt policy, which unlocked Local Plan STP1(h) open countryside support

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007219
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/687e162c-75a2-4d51-a16b-e92f39e4a54a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007219.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.