- Decision
- dismissed, 25 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Smith
- Authority
- Cheshire East (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6010751
- Application reference
- 25/1399/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Agricultural barn for machinery, hay and forage storage and workshop (retrospective)
- Site context
- open countryside, flood zone 3
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- F5, F6(1)(a), AnnexF
- Development plan policies
- Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG6, SD2, SE13, SADPD 2022 RUR1, ENV16
- Main issues
- agricultural need; flood risk
Summary
A retrospective agricultural barn in the functional floodplain near Alderley Edge was dismissed on two grounds. Agricultural need was unproven. And under the new F5/F6 and Annex F, less vulnerable development is not permitted in Flood Zone 3b at all, whatever the sequential test result.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Although there have been significant amendments to its layout and formatting such that previously cited paragraph references are no longer relevant, other changes are not substantive or determinative" (DL ¶3).
- Need: NOT SHOWN. "The proposal is not supported by a business plan, operational assessment, investment strategy … or any other substantive evidence" (DL ¶10). Generic UK yield figures were not site-specific (DL ¶8). There was no use of existing buildings (DL ¶12).
- Sequential test: FAIL (F5). An owner-only search area depends on proving operational need: "I am not convinced that locating the development in an area of lower flood risk would prejudice an agricultural operation to the extent claimed" (DL ¶20).
- Flood Zone 3b: FAIL (F6). "Even if the Sequential Test were considered to be satisfied, Policy F6 … states that development should be refused where the proposed use is incompatible with the level of flood risk … less vulnerable development within Flood Zone 3b should not be permitted" (DL ¶21).
Planning balance
No formal S5 balance. Conflict with the plan (RUR1, PG6, SE13, ENV16) and the Framework's flood policies was decisive.
What made the difference
The Flood Zone 3b location was an absolute bar under F6(1)(a) and Annex F Table 3. No amount of agricultural evidence would have overcome it at this spot.
Transferable points
- F6(1)(a) with Annex F Table 3 bars less vulnerable uses in Flood Zone 3b even if the sequential test is passed (DL ¶21).
- Confining the sequential-test search to the appellant's own holding needs demonstrated operational necessity (DL ¶18-20).
- Agricultural need requires site-specific evidence, not national average yields or future machinery (DL ¶8-10).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| F5 | fail | search area confined to appellant's land justified only by operational need, which was not shown; sequential test not passed (DL 18-20) | |
| F6(1)(a) | fail | refuse where use incompatible with flood risk; Annex F Table 3 - less vulnerable development not permitted in Flood Zone 3b (DL 17, 21-22) | |
| S5(1)(a) | neutral | not expressly applied; agricultural need not evidenced under local RUR1 (no business plan, generic yield figures) (DL 5-16) |
Key facts
- Barn built in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain), as the appellant's own FRA confirmed
- Mixed small animals on site; building set up with almost no livestock provision
- Hay yields based on UK averages, not site-specific; machinery partly not yet owned (DL 8)
- Inspector did not consult on new Framework, finding changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 3)
Related decisions
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.