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

Mr Beglan noted that the Council’s decision on the Application had been that prior approval to the design, siting and external appearance of the Works was needed, but went on to decide that those details were to be approved in accordance with the details submitted with the Application. But – he submitted – in considering whether to approve the details the Council had failed to consider the impact which the Works may have on the ancient woodland. That amounted to an error of law.

Mr Beglan noted that there was guidance on the considerations that needed to be made when dealing with a prior approval application contained within Annex E (“Permitted Development Rights for Agriculture and Forestry”) to Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (“PPG7”). These considerations included the impact of the development on visual amenity and landscape features. Although that guidance had been cancelled as part of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), it still represented good practice and hence it should continue to be observed here.

In particular Mr Beglan referred to the following passages from Annex E to PPG7 (the part relied upon by Mr Beglan is as highlighted below but I have provided the full extract for context):

“E15. Provided all the [GPDO] requirements are met, the principle of whether the development should be permitted is not for consideration, and only in cases where the local planning authority considers that a specific proposal is likely to have a significant impact on its surroundings would the Secretary of State consider it necessary for the authority to require the formal submission of details for approval. By no means all the development proposals notified under the Order will have such an impact.

E16. In operating these controls as they relate to genuine permitted development, local authorities should always have full regard to the operational needs of the agricultural and forestry industries; to the need to avoid imposing any unnecessary or excessively costly requirements; and to the normal considerations of reasonableness. However, they will also need to consider the effect of the development on the landscape in terms of visual amenity and the desirability of preserving ancient monuments and their settings, and sites of recognised nature conservation value. They should weigh these two sets of considerations. Long term conservation objectives will often be served best by ensuring that economic activity, including farming and forestry which are prominent in the rural landscape, is able to function successfully

…

E22. The arrangements do not impose full planning controls over the developments to which they apply – those developments remain ‘permitted development’ under the General Permitted Development Order. The principle of development will not be relevant providing the Order conditions are satisfied, nor will other planning issues. When details are submitted for approval under the terms of the Order, the objective should be to consider the effect of the development upon the landscape in terms of visual amenity, as well as the desirability of preserving ancient monuments and their settings, known archaeological sites, listed buildings and their settings, and sites of recognised nature conservation value … Details should be regarded in much the same light as applications for approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline planning permission …”

The Planning Statement did not refer to the fact that Bayford Wood was an ancient woodland and there was, submitted Mr Beglan, no hint to be found anywhere in the Report that the Officer had considered the impact of the design, siting and external appearance of the Works upon it. Instead, Mr Beglan noted, the Report merely recited the generic justification that “polytunnels are not uncommon in rural and agricultural areas”, and even this was merely in the context of assessing the impact on the openness of the green belt.

Mr Beglan added that policy guidance in paragraph 186(c) of the NPPF, as understood alongside the guidance in the PPG, established that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused otherwise than for exceptional reasons and where a suitable compensation strategy was in place.