The Clophill agricultural use appeal has drawn a useful line between land being used for agriculture and land qualifying for agricultural permitted development under Part 6 of the GPDO.
Inspector Chris Preston accepted that growing fruit, vegetables and similar produce can fall within the statutory definition of agriculture even where it is not being carried on commercially. But that did not give the appellant Part 6 rights for a shed.
The appeal, APP/P0240/X/25/3363150, was partly allowed on 18th September 2026. The agricultural use and perimeter fence were certified lawful; the shed was not. Appeal decision
Agriculture under the 1990 Act does not require a business
The appeal concerned Plot 4, agricultural land at Kiln Lane and Great Lane, Clophill, Bedfordshire. Central Bedfordshire Council had refused application CB/24/02950/LDCP for a proposed agricultural use, shed and perimeter fencing.
The starting point was section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Its definition of agriculture includes horticulture, fruit growing and similar activities. The Inspector found no basis for adding a commercial-purpose requirement to that statutory definition.
He referred to Crowborough Parish Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Wealden District Council (1982) 43 P & CR 229; [1981] JPL 281, where fruit and seed growing on allotments was capable of amounting to horticulture and therefore agriculture. The proposed growing at Clophill was not reduced to a garden or leisure use merely because a trade or business had not been demonstrated.
That meant the proposed use of the land for growing trees, fruit, vegetables and other produce was lawful as agriculture.
Part 6 asks a different question
The shed failed because Part 6 agricultural permitted development contains its own requirements. Paragraph D.1 defines agricultural land for the relevant Part 6 rights as land in use for agriculture and so used for the purposes of a trade or business.
The Inspector therefore rejected the argument that acceptance of an agricultural use automatically unlocked Part 6. A subordinate GPDO definition could not narrow the meaning of agriculture in section 336 for the planning-use question, but it could impose additional conditions on the particular permitted development right.
There were separate size problems too. Class A applies to agricultural units of at least five hectares. The appeal plot was nowhere near that threshold. Class B applies only where the agricultural unit is at least 0.4 hectare, and in any event Class B does not grant permission for the erection of a building.
The appellant sought to rely on a wider former paddock, but the Inspector found that the land had been sold to different people and the use of each small plot had no connection with neighbouring plots. The fact that non-contiguous parcels can sometimes form one unit did not help on the evidence here. Our guide to what forms an agricultural unit explains that issue in more detail.
The stock-proof fence was permitted development
The proposed perimeter fence was treated differently. Because the proposed agricultural use was lawful, article 3(5)(b) did not bar the perimeter fencing from relying on permitted development rights.
The Inspector found the stock-proof fence, up to four feet high and not adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic, fell within Part 2 Class A. That element was therefore certified lawful.
The garden shed was not. The appeal was dismissed for that element but allowed for the agricultural use and perimeter fence, with a certificate issued for those two matters.
What the Clophill agricultural use appeal means for small plots
Planning Geek’s view is that this is a particularly useful smallholding example because two legal questions are often collapsed into one.
First ask whether the land use is agriculture within section 336. Then ask separately whether the precise GPDO right being relied upon is available. Part 6 brings additional tests concerning the agricultural unit, its size, the purpose of the agricultural use and the type of development proposed.
Calling land agricultural does not create a general right to put agricultural buildings on it. The Clophill agricultural use appeal is a neat demonstration of why the statutory use definition and the permitted development conditions must be checked independently.
Report published: 19th September 2026
0 Comments