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

For the Claimant Mr Beglan noted that the Officer had initially been unsure whether the application plans submitted with the original application demonstrated that the size of the agricultural unit was at least 5 hectares. This criterion is important since – as I have noted above – only units which are least 5 hectares in size benefit from permitted development rights for the creation of new units.

Having identified a deficiency in the application material, Mr Beglan submitted that the Officer nevertheless erred in treating the supplementary plans as being sufficient evidence to overcome her concerns. In particular, the supplementary plans said nothing about the use to which the land was put, and from a simple calculation it was evident that a majority of the suggested 5 hectares would have to be comprised of activities said to be undertaken within Bayford Wood itself.

With something as important as the size of the unit, submitted Mr Beglan, it was especially important that the Officer be satisfied that the evidence showed the relevant criterion to be satisfied.

Mr Beglan referred to other case-law which had considered the eligibility for permitted development rights based on agricultural use. One such case was R v Sevenoaks District Council, ex p Palley [1994] EGCS 148. In Palley, May J had warned that considering eligibility for permitted development rights may involve some complexity which may require a site visit to resolve.

Despite this warning, submitted Mr Beglan, no officer of the Council had visited the site prior to a decision being taken and the sparse documentation submitted with the Application contained little material upon which such a judgement could be based. Indeed, Mr Beglan went so far as to submit that there was “nothing of substance” to indicate that the size criterion was met.

For these reasons, submitted Mr Beglan, the conclusion of the Officer on this point was illogical or unreasonable, and therefore unlawful.