Polytunnels Recognized as Development Requiring Planning Permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Introduction

The case of Hall Hunter Partnership, R (on the application of) v. First Secretary of State & Ors ([2006] EWHC 3482 (Admin)) addresses the contentious issue of whether the erection of polytunnels on agricultural land within a Green Belt constitutes "development" under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the Act"). The claimant, Hall Hunter Partnership, sought to challenge decisions made by an appointed Inspector who dismissed their appeals against two enforcement notices issued by the local planning authority. These notices pertained to the unauthorized erection of polytunnels and the stationing of caravans on their farm located at Tuesley Farm, Tuesley Lane, Godalming.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court upheld the Inspector's decisions, affirming that the erection of polytunnels on the claimant's farm amounted to "development" requiring planning permission under the Act. The court meticulously analyzed the criteria defining development, particularly focusing on the size, permanence, and degree of physical attachment of the polytunnels to the land. Additionally, the court addressed the claimant's use of caravans for housing workers, concluding that this practice also infringed planning regulations. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the claimant was ordered to pay the costs of the defendant.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents to interpret the definition of "development" under the Act:

Skerrits of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Harrow LBC (No.2) [2000] – This case provided a framework for assessing whether structures constitute development based on size, permanence, and physical attachment.
Cardiff Rating Authority and Cardiff Assessment Committee v Guest Keen and Baldwin's Iron and Steel Co.Ltd [1949] – Established a three-factor test (size, permanence, degree of attachment) for determining what constitutes a building or structure.
Barvis Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1971] – Confirmed the applicability of the three-factor test in planning contexts.
Parkes v Secretary of State for the Environment [1979] – Clarified the distinction between "operations" and "use" in the context of land development.
Ramsey v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Suffolk Coastal DC [2002] – Discussed the significance of operations in determining the temporality of land use.
Sunbury-on-Thames UDC v Mann [1958] and Brown v Hayes and Harlington UDC [1963] – Influential in interpreting temporary buildings and operations in planning orders.

These precedents collectively reinforced the Inspector's approach in classifying polytunnels as development requiring planning permission.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into the statutory definitions provided in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 55(1) defines "development" as the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on, over, or under any land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land.
Section 57 mandates that "planning permission" is required for any "development" of land.
The three-factor test from Cardiff Rating Authority was pivotal in assessing whether the polytunnels fell under "development."

The Inspector evaluated the polytunnels against the three factors:

Size: The extensive coverage and substantial physical dimensions of the polytunnels were indicative of significant development.
Physical Attachment: The use of machinery to affix polytunnels deeply into the ground demonstrated a high degree of permanence.
Permanence: Even though polytunnels were dismantled and re-erected seasonally, their existing for several months a year qualified as a significant period in planning terms.

The Inspector also addressed the claimant's use of caravans, determining that their prolonged occupation conflicted with the criteria for temporary use under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the planning and agricultural sectors:

Clarification on Agricultural Structures: It solidifies the stance that substantial agricultural structures like polytunnels are considered development, necessitating proper planning permissions.
Green Belt Protections: Reinforces stringent controls over development within Green Belts, emphasizing the preservation of landscape and environmental quality.
Operational Development: Sets a precedent on evaluating temporary versus operational development, particularly in agricultural contexts.
Future Planning Applications: Farmers and agricultural businesses must now be more diligent in seeking planning permissions for significant operational structures to avoid legal disputes.

Overall, the decision underscores the importance of adhering to planning regulations, especially in environmentally sensitive areas.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Development

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, "development" encompasses a wide range of activities that alter the use or physical structure of land. This includes building structures, engineering projects, and any significant change in land use.

General Permitted Development Order (GPDO)

The GPDO allows certain types of development to proceed without the need for explicit planning permission, provided they meet specific criteria. However, these permissions come with conditions that must be strictly adhered to.

Green Belt

Green Belts are designated areas surrounding urban centers, intended to prevent urban sprawl, preserve the character of countryside areas, and protect the environment. Development within Green Belts is heavily regulated to maintain these objectives.

Operational Development

This refers to changes or additions to land use that support the operational activities of a business or enterprise, such as agricultural operations. It contrasts with a mere change of use and often involves more substantial physical modifications.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Hall Hunter Partnership v. First Secretary of State & Ors serves as a crucial affirmation of the stringent definitions and regulations surrounding "development" under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. By thoroughly analyzing the size, permanence, and physical attachment of polytunnels, the court has set a clear precedent that substantial agricultural structures fall under the purview of requiring planning permission, especially within protected areas like Green Belts.

This judgment not only reinforces existing planning laws but also provides clarity for future agricultural and development projects, ensuring that environmental and community standards are upheld. Stakeholders in the agricultural sector must now navigate these regulations with greater scrutiny to ensure compliance and avoid similar legal challenges.