# Sky Farm, New Years Lane, Knockholt (agricultural building)

- **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Shearing
- **Authority:** Bromley (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007338
- **Application reference:** 25/04473/FPA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retention of an agricultural building for hay and straw storage, farm equipment and lambing (Appeal A; hard surfacing Appeal B is PINS-6007340)
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(a), S3(1)(c)
- **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policy 49, London Plan 2021 G2
- **Main issues:** inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- **Tags:** tier-2, agricultural-building, not-inappropriate, retrospective, costs-application, linked-appeals, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Retrospective permission for an agricultural building on a sheep farm in the Bromley Green Belt. Allowed. It is a building "for agriculture" (DL ¶9), so it falls within GB7(1)(a) and is not inappropriate. Neither the plan nor the Framework asks whether the building is needed. The linked hard-surfacing appeal (PINS-6007340) was allowed in the same letter.

## Issues and findings
- **GB7(1)(a).** "The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7. Similarly to Policy 49, those categories include development which is for agriculture" (DL ¶9). "Based on what I have seen, there is no provision under either the BLP or national policy to consider whether a need for the agricultural building exists" (DL ¶12).
- **Consequence.** "Appeal A is not harmful to the Green Belt and is not required to demonstrate very special circumstances" (DL ¶14).
- **Presumption.** "Policy S3.1c of the Framework states that in all locations, development proposals that accord with both an up to date development plan and the decision-making policies in the Framework should be approved without delay" (DL ¶20).
- **DM8.** "there is not substantive detail before me to establish that the unauthorised development here was intentional" (DL ¶21).

## What made the difference
Evidence of a real sheep enterprise, consistent with earlier appeal findings. That outweighed the domestic fittings and a one-off children's event. Once the building is "for agriculture" (DL ¶9), GB7(1)(a) has no need test.

## Transferable points
- GB7(1)(a) asks whether the building is for agriculture, not whether it is needed (DL ¶12).
- Domestic-looking fittings do not stop a building being agricultural where the permission sought, and the evidence, point to agricultural use (DL ¶11).
- Retrospective development is not held against a scheme under DM8 unless intentional unauthorised development is shown (DL ¶21).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(a): pass.** building for agriculture (pedigree sheep grazing and breeding); domestic features and a children's event do not displace the agricultural use; no need test under the plan or the Framework (DL 9-13)
- **GB6: not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so no VSC and no separate openness assessment (DL 14)
- **S3(1)(c): pass.** accords with an up-to-date plan and the Framework, so approve without delay; also says agricultural uses are "supported by the Framework outside settlements" (DL 20)
- **DM8: neutral.** intentional unauthorised development not shown (DL 21)

## Key facts
- Retrospective; building already erected (DL 6)
- Council doubted the agricultural use (laminate floors, downlighters, no ventilation, a children's camp), but the inspector found "compelling evidence of the otherwise agricultural use" (DL 11)
- Earlier appeals in 2022 described the same sheep enterprise (DL 10)
- Costs applications against the Council on both appeals decided separately (DL 3)
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 7)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007338
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/349bafa8-ce42-4016-9bcf-392d1dac9d7a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007338.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.