An agricultural track appeal in East Keswick, Leeds, has been dismissed after an Inspector found that a proposed access crossed two different agricultural units and lacked the evidence needed to satisfy the permitted development rules. The decision, issued on 4 November 2026, exposes a trap for smallholders relying on agricultural permitted development.
The appeal concerned a new private way and hardstanding west of Moor Lane. Inspector Elaine Moulton found that most of the route related to an agricultural unit of less than five hectares, but a short section crossed a separate larger unit. That prevented the Inspector from examining the entire project under the Class A prior-approval procedure.
The agricultural track appeal is particularly useful for farm owners because the Inspector distinguished a legal right to seek prior approval from the separate question of whether development is lawful. The Inspector also examined the need to show genuine agricultural business use rather than merely describing land as a smallholding.
Why the agricultural track appeal failed
The agricultural track appeal turned on the legal status of two different sections of a proposed access route. Part of the scheme lay within a small agricultural unit of less than five hectares, while approximately 15 metres at the start would cross land within a separate, larger agricultural unit. Those distinctions meant the proposal could not simply be assessed as one continuous track under a single permitted development class.
Leeds City Council had assessed the proposal against Class B of Part 6 of the General Permitted Development Order. The Inspector explained that Class B development on land outside article 2(4) areas is not subject to the particular prior-approval determination process that would create this section 78 appeal route. The Inspector therefore did not determine whether the proposed hardstanding and most of the track satisfied Class B’s requirements.
That distinction matters because an appeal against a refused prior approval cannot establish permitted development rights for works that do not require that prior approval in the first place. The Inspector pointed to a separate possible route: the appellant could seek a certificate under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the relevant Class B elements, without that application being prejudiced by this decision.
The agricultural unit and five-hectare division
For the first 15 metres, the Inspector considered Class A of Part 6. This class can permit qualifying engineering works on agricultural land forming part of a unit of five hectares or more, subject to its own limits and, for a private way, the requirement to ask whether prior approval of siting and construction is needed. That was the only portion of the track she could examine through this appeal.
The main problem was not whether the route looked like a useful farm access. It was whether the correct land qualified for the statutory right. The proposed route crossed land outside the appellant’s ownership and control, so it was not enough to show that the appellant wanted a track for his own smaller holding. The agricultural purpose of the unit containing that section also mattered.
Planning Geek’s published Part 6 Class A agricultural guidance explains the importance of identifying the holding, the works and the relevant limitations before deciding that prior approval is the correct procedure. The agricultural track appeal illustrates why the five-hectare boundary is more than a simple measurement on a plan.
Hobby use is not necessarily an agricultural trade
Part 6 defines agricultural land by reference to land used for agriculture for the purposes of a trade or business before the proposed development. The appellant referred to his land as a smallholding, but the evidence did not establish whether it operated commercially rather than for leisure or hobby purposes. The Inspector found no evidence that it is being used for the purposes of an agricultural trade or business rather than for leisure or hobby purposes
. The quoted words are from the Planning Inspectorate decision dated 4 November 2026, reproduced under the Open Government Licence.
Inspector Elaine Moulton also found no clear evidence that the short section across the adjoining unit was reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit where it would be built. Establishing a need for access to the appellant’s separate property could not satisfy that different statutory test.
This is a practical warning for applicants using the agricultural track appeal as a precedent. A holding’s general rural appearance, informal livestock keeping, or the possession of agricultural machinery does not automatically establish the relevant trade or business. Evidence may need to explain how the land is actually used, the commercial activity carried on and why the particular engineering works serve that agricultural unit.
An earlier barn conversion complicated access
The appellant explained that a previously approved conversion of an agricultural building to a dwelling would require fencing around the residential curtilage, cutting the remaining land off from its existing route. The Inspector did not dispute that practical difficulty. The Inspector also acknowledged poor winter access, safety concerns and the wish to store equipment and feed more efficiently.
However, those circumstances did not answer whether the short track on the other unit was permitted development under Class A. The Inspector was assessing a defined legal entitlement, not a full planning application in which a wider set of benefits and harms could be balanced. The agricultural track appeal was consequently dismissed without an assessment of the proposed track’s detailed siting or method of construction.
Anyone managing a barn conversion alongside farm operations should plan access early. Retaining a working agricultural route may involve land in a different ownership, another agricultural unit or a different GPDO class. This decision demonstrates the risk of leaving those relationships unresolved until after the residential curtilage and associated restrictions have already been fixed.
What applicants can take from this decision
For farms of five hectares or more, it is essential to identify whether Class A covers the proposed operation and whether the application genuinely requires a prior-approval determination. For smaller agricultural units, the scope of Class B and its own conditions may be relevant instead. The two pathways should not be treated as interchangeable when preparing plans, ownership certificates and supporting information.
An application should clearly identify every section of a proposed private way, including crossings over another holding. The documentation should address the agricultural trade or business on the relevant unit, its extent and why the works are reasonably necessary for agriculture there. The agricultural track appeal suggests that leaving those points unsupported can defeat a proposal before design and surfacing details are even reached.
Planning Geek also explains wider agricultural and forestry permitted development rights, which can assist when deciding whether a full planning application, a lawful development certificate or prior approval is appropriate. These routes have different functions, and an Inspector’s refusal to decide a Class B issue should not be mistaken for a conclusive decision that Class B rights do not exist.
Decision and source
The agricultural track appeal was determined by Inspector Elaine Moulton on 4 November 2026, appeal reference 6013859, following a site visit on 16 October. It concerns land west of Moor Lane, East Keswick, and Leeds City Council application 26/03776/DAG. The Planning Inspectorate appeal record is the official source.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The refusal was confined to the issues the Inspector had power to consider through the submitted appeal. It did not determine a new planning application for the entire route or the separate Class B certificate question.
0 Comments