R (Hall Hunter Partnership) v First Secretary of State & Ors [2006] EWHC 3482 (Admin)
The point in plain English: Agricultural structures do not escape planning control simply because they are seasonal or part of farming. Large polytunnels can amount to buildings and operational development where their size, permanence and physical attachment make them significant in planning terms.
What happened
Hall Hunter Partnership used extensive blocks of polytunnels at Tuesley Farm for soft-fruit production. The farm also accommodated seasonal workers in caravans. Enforcement notices were served against both the polytunnels and the caravan use.
The Inspector treated the polytunnels as operational development and found that the caravan use did not satisfy the agricultural caravan permitted-development requirements.
What the High Court decided
Sullivan J dismissed the appeal. Applying the familiar size, permanence and physical-attachment factors, the Inspector was entitled to find that the polytunnels were buildings and therefore operational development. Their periodic dismantling did not make them transient or insignificant.
The court also held that the old Part 4 temporary-building right did not apply merely because the structures were connected with agricultural use. On the caravan issue, removing the caravans for part of the year did not necessarily discontinue the caravan-site use where the infrastructure remained ready for their return, and occupation for nine to ten months was not a particular season.
Why Hall Hunter matters
The judgment remains a useful fact-and-degree authority when deciding whether agricultural structures are buildings or other operational development. The detailed GPDO provisions considered were those in force in 2006, so current agricultural permitted-development rights must be checked separately.
Planning Geek explains current permitted development and agricultural planning rules elsewhere on the site.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.