1. Site Description
1.1 High Woodside consists of a Farmhouse and attached barn, and a large concrete framed agricultural building immediately adjacent to the northern side of the farmhouse.
1.2 The access to the site is taken from Woodside Lane and also serves as access to surrounding agricultural land.
2. Proposal
2.1 The applications seeks the grant of a lawful development certificate for the use of the large concrete farm building adjacent to the farm house as an agricultural contractors business unit.
3. Planning History
3.1 Not relevant to this application.
4. Planning Policy Background
4.1 Not relevant.
5. Parish/Town Council Comments
5.1 Not consulted as part of this procedure.
6. Consultations
6.1 Revenue section of the Council – no record of commercial rates in the register.
7. Representations
7.1 No publicity undertaken on these applications.
7.2 The Applicant has provided a statement supporting his application which sets out the main usages of the premises from 1988 to 2003.
7.3 The Applicant describes his business as a Shuttered Concrete Contractor but also acts as an Agricultural Contractor. He indicates that from 1988 – 1996 his business was mainly involved with the installation of land drainage schemes and water supply systems.
7.4 From 1996 to 2003 the business turned to Farm Construction, mainly the construction of in-situ concrete walls, fitting out of buildings for various uses such as cubicle housing. Other works are listed and are all related to Agricultural Contracting type operations.
7.5 Plant and equipment is stored in the buildings of a type related to the business operations.
8. Summary of principle planning issues
8.1 Whether or not sufficient evidence has been provide to substantiate the use of the building as an Agricultural Workshop and storage unit in accordance with the requirements of subsection (4) of section 191 of the 1990 Act.
9. Analysis
9.1 The Courts have ruled that where the burden of proof is on the Appellant the relevant test of evidence in connection with such matters is “the balance of probability”.
Moreover, the court has held that the appellant
’s own evidence does not need to be corroborated by “independent” evidence in order to be accepted. If the DPA have no evidence of their own, or from others to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of events less probable, there is no good reason to refuse the application,

provided the applicant’s evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate on the balance of probability.
9.2 The information provided by the Applicant’ Agent indicates that a business which could reasonably be called an Agricultural Contractor has been operated from the premises for at least 10 years. Such uses are considered to be Sui Generis.
9.3 The Revenue section of the Council indicate that the Applicant is not registered for business rates, and his Agent confirmed this verbally on the 8 th July.
9.4 The receipts which have been submitted as part of the evidence are for materials which would be use in connection with the business operations being carried out from the site.
9.5 The application has been considered in consultation with the Council’s Legal Section and the following description has been agreed with the applicant’s Agent Andrew
Durham.
9.6 “ Use of existing buildings and land as a depot and storage yard for the business of agricultural contractor principally engaged in farm construction, concreting and the installation of land drainage and water supply systems; such use including the manufacture of concrete products, steel and wooden doors and steel barriers for installation in the course of the contracting business”.
9.7 A plan showing the agreed extent of the application site was provided by the
Applicant’s Agent on the 7 th February 2006.
9.8 The CLUED has been finalised and the decision issued on the 18 th April 2006.
10. Recommendation
10.1 Approve
11. Summary of Conditions
11.1 The application site shall extend only to the area edged red on the site plan provided by the Applicant’s Agent on the 7 th February 2006.
11.2 Reason. For the avoidance of doubt.