# Land rear of 53 Beresford Avenue, Chapel-en-le-Frith (agricultural containers)

- **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard
- **Authority:** High Peak (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009410
- **Application reference:** HPK/2025/0352
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Siting of two storage containers for agricultural machinery with permeable hardstanding; retention of beehives and small poultry enclosure (already carried out)
- **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a), S5(2)
- **Development plan policies:** High Peak Local Plan 2016 S2, EQ2, EQ3, EQ6, High Peak Landscape Character SPD5 2006
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, acceptable countryside use
- **Tags:** tier-2, agricultural-building, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Two agricultural storage containers, beehives and a poultry run in a field on the edge of Chapel-en-le-Frith. The local plan requires countryside agricultural development to support an existing agricultural enterprise, and this hobby-scale activity did not. But S5(1)(a) supports development for agriculture without that requirement, no "should be refused" policy was breached, and the containers caused no landscape harm. The benefits were not substantially outweighed. Allowed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "References to the Framework in my decision are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶3).
- **Character: no harm.** "the containers, hardstanding and associated works sit relatively comfortably in their surroundings and do not appear to be intrusive or discordant features within the countryside" (DL ¶11). DP3 complied with (DL ¶12).
- **Plan conflict.** "I cannot conclude that currently there is a meaningful agricultural enterprise that is supported by the development" (DL ¶17), so conflict with S2 and EQ3 (DL ¶19).
- **S5(1)(a).** "Policy S5 of the Framework supports development for agriculture outside settlements and does not require such development to support an existing agricultural enterprise" (DL ¶22).
- **DM8.** "there is no substantive evidence before me that this was the case, and I therefore attach limited weight to that matter" (DL ¶21).

## Planning balance
S5(1) balance with S5(2) checked: "the benefits of granting planning permission would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of doing so" (DL ¶23). The plan conflict was outweighed as a material consideration (DL ¶25). Annex A(2) was not named, but the effect is the same: the plan's extra requirement to support an existing enterprise, which S5(1)(a) does not impose, carried little weight.

## What made the difference
The gap between the local policy (agriculture must support an existing enterprise) and S5(1)(a) (agriculture as such). With no landscape harm, the Framework route prevailed.

## Transferable points
- S5(1)(a) does not require agricultural development to support an existing agricultural enterprise; a local policy that does is outweighed (DL ¶22-23).
- Retrospective development is weighed against only where intent is evidenced under DM8 (DL ¶21).
- An ancillary-agricultural-use condition answers fears of non-agricultural use (DL ¶15, ¶24).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(a): pass.** "Policy S5 of the Framework supports development for agriculture outside settlements and does not require such development to support an existing agricultural enterprise" (DL 22)
- **S5(2): pass.** no conflict with any Framework "should be refused" policy (DL 22)
- **DP3: accord.** dark green, recessed containers not discordant in edge-of-settlement views; hedging maturing (DL 7-12)
- **DM8: neutral (limited weight).** no substantive evidence that the unauthorised development was intentional; limited weight (DL 21)
- **S5(1): pass.** modest benefits not substantially outweighed by limited adverse effects including the plan conflict (DL 23)
- **DM6: pass.** condition limiting containers to purposes ancillary to the site's agricultural use (DL 15, 24)

## Key facts
- Hobby-scale poultry and beekeeping only; no meaningful agricultural enterprise, so conflict with local S2 and EQ3, which require support for an existing enterprise (DL 14-20)
- One container admitted to hold engineering-business equipment; controlled by condition (DL 15)
- Plan conflict outweighed; Annex A not named (DL 22-25)
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009410
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a2cab900-2215-4c93-93a2-f1acffe9dac6

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009410.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.