AC-2024-LON-002558 - [2025] EWHC 2278 (Admin)

For the Council Ms Nevin submitted that the Claimant did not come close to clearing the high hurdle necessary for an irrationality challenge on the facts.

The Officer was right to ask for supplementary information to satisfy her that the unit size was indeed in excess of 5 hectares. It was reasonable to conclude based on the original and supplementary material submitted with the Application that the unit size was at least 5 hectares.

Ms Nevin noted the submissions made by the Claimant based on prior case-law. However, she submitted that there was nothing in that case-law to establish a general principle that site visits should be undertaken, nor further supporting documents provided, before a logical conclusion about the size of an agricultural unit could be reached. Palley could certainly not be interpreted in this way.

Moreover, submitted Ms Nevin, the approach urged by the Claimant was at odds with the “light-touch” approach which is appropriate for prior approval applications as compared with (for example) the approach to planning applications. Guidance to this effect is found in the Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) as follows:

“Is a prior approval application like a planning application?

The statutory requirements relating to prior approval are much less prescriptive than those relating to planning applications. This is deliberate, as prior approval is a light-touch process which applies where the principle of the development has already been established. Where no specific procedure is provided in the General Permitted Development Order, local planning authorities have discretion as to what processes they put in place. It is important that a local planning authority does not impose unnecessarily onerous requirements on developers, and does not seek to replicate the planning application system.

Paragraph: 028 Reference ID: 13-028-20140306

Revision date: 06 03 2014”