# The Old Rectory, Mill Lane, Gratwich (agricultural building)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton
- **Authority:** East Staffordshire (West Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010763
- **Application reference:** P/2024/00727
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Agricultural building (U-shaped timber barn) for hay, haylage and machinery storage
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a), E4, E2, DP1
- **Development plan policies:** East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031 SP8, SP14, SP29, DP1, East Staffordshire Design Guide SPD
- **Main issues:** countryside strategy / fitness for purpose, BNG, character and appearance
- **Tags:** agricultural-building, fit-for-purpose, s5-1-a, transitional-no-consultation, bng-deferred-to-condition

## Summary
A traditional-style timber agricultural barn was dismissed at appeal, although the need for a building was accepted. The design was not fit for its stated purpose: doors and bays too small for modern machinery, too little ventilation for hay, and undersized machinery storage. So it was not "essential" to the business. The inspector read the local countryside policy as consistent with E2 and E4. Because the building was not a well-designed building supporting farm viability, the benefits were "substantially outweighed" under S5.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The policy emphasis of the parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not changed. As a result, I have not sought comments on the new version" (DL ¶2).
- **Fitness for purpose: FAIL.** The doors and internal floorspace were not "conducive to a reasonably efficient and practical arrangement for the storage of hay and haylage using many pieces of modern machinery" (DL ¶7). "the proposed building would not be essential to the support and viability of the agricultural business" (DL ¶12).
- **BNG: adequate.** "There is no policy or statutory requirement for me to assess or settle issues such as the quality and extent of the minimum information provided, or the location of off-site gains at the appeal stage. These are matters to be resolved through the discharge of the BGC" (DL ¶17).
- **Character: acceptable** (DL ¶20-21).
- **National policy.** "There is consistency between LP Policies SP8, DP1 and SP14, and policies E2 and E4 of the Framework … it would not constitute a well-designed new building or maintain and enhance farm viability and sustainability. I attribute significant weight to this conflict. Consequently, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶23).

## Planning balance
The S5 presumption (agriculture is within S5(1)(a)) was displaced by a significant-weight conflict on functional design. The decision followed the plan under s38(6).

## What made the difference
Evidence on functional design from the council's agricultural consultant, which the appellant did not rebut. An agricultural building of conventional portal-frame form with adequate door heights and ventilation would likely have been approved, since need, BNG and landscape were all resolved in the appellant's favour.

## Transferable points
- Agriculture falls within S5(1)(a), but a building that is not fit for its agricultural purpose can still fail the "substantially outweighed" test via E4's "well-designed new buildings" wording (DL ¶23).
- For BNG, an appeal need only show the statutory condition is capable of discharge. Detail is for the condition (DL ¶16-19).
- Local plan policies requiring countryside buildings to be essential to a rural business are consistent with E2/E4 (DL ¶23).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(a): fail (significant weight).** agricultural development outside settlements, but the benefits were "substantially outweighed" because the building was functionally unfit for purpose (DL 23)
- **E4: conflict (significant weight).** not a "well-designed new building" that maintains or enhances farm viability; local SP8/DP1/SP14 consistent with E2/E4 (DL 23)
- **N2: pass.** BNG capable of delivery on appellant's other land; details are for the statutory biodiversity gain condition, not the appeal (DL 14-19)
- **DP3: pass.** no harm to character and appearance; part of existing cluster, set back behind vegetation (DL 20-21)

## Key facts
- Need for an agricultural building for a hay/haylage/silage business not disputed
- Timber barn doors and bays too narrow and low for modern machinery including tractors with cabs; poor ventilation for hay storage (DL 7-10)
- Machinery storage undersized per the council's countryside consultant (DL 9)
- Inspector did not seek comments on the new Framework, finding the relevant emphasis unchanged (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010763
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6338609c-20ec-4059-ab65-ff181cb3c52f

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010763.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.