- Decision
- dismissed, 3 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: SE Hughes
- Authority
- Buckinghamshire (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6007287
- Application reference
- PL/25/3313/FA
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Storage building for agricultural/land management equipment with roof-mounted solar panels
- Site context
- green belt, national landscape, listed building setting, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(a), HE4, HE6, N4, N2
- Development plan policies
- Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (consolidated 2011) GB2, GC1, LSQ1, Core Strategy for Chiltern District 2011 CS20, CS22, CS24
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; heritage setting; National Landscape; biodiversity
Summary
A small machinery store on a 2.35 ha meadow in the Chilterns Green Belt and National Landscape, beside a listed farmstead. The appeal was dismissed. The building qualified as "for agriculture" under GB7(1)(a), so it was not inappropriate. It failed on its felt roof, which harmed the setting of the listed farmhouse and barns and the National Landscape, and on inconsistent great crested newt evidence.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The agriculture policy was held "unchanged, except for its relocation under policy GB7", so there was no consultation (DL ¶4).
- GB7(1)(a): PASS. There were no livestock and no agricultural appraisal. Still, "there is no compelling evidence that casts clear doubt that the land is not in use for agriculture" (DL ¶9). The building "is of a size commensurate with the size of the appellant's agricultural landholding" and an agricultural-use condition would prevent domestic use (DL ¶10-11). The local plan's "reasonably required" qualifier is not in the Framework (DL ¶7).
- Heritage: HARM. The felt roof "would appear incongruous and out of place … at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm, nevertheless, even less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset carries great weight" (DL ¶17). This uses 2024 wording; the 2026 HE6(1) is "substantial weight" and drops the "less than substantial" label. The solar array's public benefit was limited because of its small scale (DL ¶21).
- Biodiversity: FAIL. The PWMS contradicts the eDNA-positive pond evidence (DL ¶22-24).
Planning balance
The HE6 balance: small-scale renewable benefit did not outweigh the heritage harm (DL ¶21). Conflict with the plan was not outweighed (DL ¶26).
What made the difference
The Green Belt was cleared easily. GB7(1)(a) asks only whether the building is for agriculture, and a use condition answered that. The appeal was lost on materials, a felt roof next to a tiled listed farmstead, and on a contradictory newt method statement. A tiled roof and consistent ecology evidence would likely have succeeded.
Transferable points
- GB7(1)(a) has no "reasonably required" test. A building commensurate with a small agricultural holding, tied by condition, qualifies even before the land is actively farmed (DL ¶7-11).
- The 2026 Framework's agriculture exception is treated as unchanged in substance (DL ¶4).
- Small roof-mounted solar gets limited public-benefit weight in an HE6 balance (DL ¶21).
- Some inspectors still use the 2024 heritage wording ("less than substantial", "great weight") after 17 Aug 2026 (DL ¶17).
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 | 2.35 ha meadow is agriculture (s336); machinery storage building commensurate with holding; no agricultural appraisal needed; agricultural-use condition (DL 6-11) | |
| GB6(2) | not-engaged | not inappropriate so openness/VSC not assessed (DL 12) | |
| HE6 | harm | great | felt roof incongruous in setting of Grade II Copes Farmhouse and listed cowsheds/stables; "lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm" (2024 wording) given "great weight"; small solar array = limited public benefit (DL 16-21) |
| HE4 | fail | harm requires "clear and convincing justification" (DL 20) | |
| N4 | harm | fails to conserve simple rural character of Chilterns National Landscape (DL 21) | |
| N2 | fail | PWMS inconsistent on great crested newt presence in adjacent pond (eDNA positive) → biodiversity effects not addressed (DL 22-25) |
Key facts
- 2.35 ha meadow with no livestock or machinery yet; the appellant intends small-holding farming
- A small low building with five double doors, looking like a neighbour's garage; felt roof
- The inspector said the agriculture exception was "unchanged" in the 2026 Framework apart from moving into GB7, so no consultation was needed (DL 4)
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.