Hall Hunter Partnership, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors

Whether an agricultural structure is operational development is a matter of fact and degree. The court must consider all the circumstances, including size, physical attachment and permanence. A structure may be sufficiently permanent even if dismantled and removed annually, provided it remains in place for a period significant in the planning context.

In the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, “operations” in the temporary-buildings class refers to operational development, not merely the use of land for agriculture. A caravan site does not cease to be used as such merely because caravans are temporarily removed if the site remains fitted out and designed for their return.

The claimant operated a soft-fruit farm in the Green Belt and erected extensive polytunnels. It also stationed caravans for seasonal workers. Waverley Borough Council issued two enforcement notices alleging, respectively, an unauthorised material change of use to a caravan site and unauthorised operational development comprising polytunnels and associated works.

An Inspector dismissed the claimant’s appeals under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, upheld the notices with corrections, and extended the compliance period. The claimant appealed under section 289, challenging the classification of the polytunnels, their alleged permitted-development status, the caravan-site provisions, and the planning merits. The central issues were whether the polytunnels were development, whether either use was permitted development, and whether the Inspector’s planning conclusions disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Inspector had applied the correct legal approach and reached conclusions open to him on the evidence.
2. In deciding whether the polytunnels amounted to a building operation and therefore development under section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the relevant considerations were size, degree of physical attachment and permanence, viewed in the context of all the circumstances. The Inspector was entitled to assess the blocks of tunnels actually erected, rather than an abstract question about a single polytunnel. Their substantial scale, machine-driven fixation up to one metre into the ground, method of erection and dismantling, and three-to-seven-month periods in situ supported the conclusion that they were development.
3. “Operations” in Class A of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 meant operational development, in contrast with the use of land addressed by Class B. Agricultural activity was a use of land, not an operation for this purpose. The polytunnels were therefore not permitted under Class A. The Inspector was also entitled to find that their presence for up to nine months was not temporary in the relevant sense.
4. The caravan-site permission in Class A of Part 5 required all the specified criteria to be met. Removal of caravans did not necessarily discontinue the use where the land remained designed and fitted out as a caravan site, with infrastructure awaiting their return. The Inspector was entitled to find that the nine-to-ten-month occupation was not accommodation during a particular season. Those findings were independently fatal to the challenge, so it was unnecessary to decide conclusively whether workers who spent 17 per cent of their time at other farms were employed in farming operations on land in the same occupation.
5. The Inspector correctly treated the polytunnels as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and then assessed the proposal under ordinary development-plan policies and national guidance. The serious landscape and amenity harm was found to outweigh the agricultural benefits. The appeal was dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the First Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £14,064.

The judgment describes an appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an Inspector’s decision letter dated 15 December 2005 dismissing two appeals under section 174. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. Any application for permission to appeal had to be made to the Court of Appeal because this was treated as a second appeal.