The appellant argued that the works were covered by the agricultural permitted development rights in part 6, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. But the inspector decided that no substantial evidence had been produced to demonstrate that the appellant had a particular agricultural use in mind for the building while the works were being carried out.
On that basis, he decided, the works were not permitted development.
He found that they would involve a substantial alteration in the character of the building. Apart from the structural steel frame, he ruled, very little of the original would remain. The proposal would be tantamount to the erection of a new building and would be inappropriate to the green belt, he held.
DCS No: 54487464; Inspector: Bruce Barnett; Inquiry.