The fact that a new product was made on agricultural land from produce grown elsewhere on the land did not make that production process non-agricultural. The making of wine is capable of being agricultural use, and being thus free from planning control. The court considered the Secretary of State’s reaction to the judges comments at first instance on planning conditions: ‘The Secretary of State takes exception to those comments by the judge. We have not heard full argument on those points having indicated to the parties that we were not prepared to do so in the context of this appeal. The judge had in front of him argument in relation to what was a positive rather than a negative condition and so his comments in relation to negative conditions were not necessary for his decision. . . . We do not regard it as appropriate to lengthen our judgments by a consideration of a difficult question which has already troubled the House of Lords and the resolution of which was not necessary for the judge nor is it for us.’
Gazette 07-Jul-1999, Times 29-Jun-1999, (2000) JPL 297,  EWCA Civ 1682
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 55(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Williams v Minister of Housing and Local Government QBD 1967
The appellant land-owner had bought it with an established business selling by retail from it vegetables and fruits and flowers grown on the land. He made minor alterations to the shop and began to sell also a number of oranges bananas and lemons . .
Cited – Wealden District Council v Secretary of State for Environment and Colin Day CA 1988
Land was in an area designated to be of outstanding natural beauty. The Council sought the removal of a caravan used to provide weatherproof storage for cattle food and shelter for the farmer, saying that this amounted to a material change of use. . .
Cited – Farleyer Estates v Secretary of State for Scotland IHCS 1992
An Enforcement Notice alleged unauthorised use of land as a timber storage and transfer area. The land so used was 1500 metres from forestry plantations. The appellant argued that it was concerned with ‘the use of land for the purposes of forestry’ . .
Appeal from – Millington v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 1999
The court commented on provisions in a circular as to the correctness of imposing planning conditions where it was thought that they might not be fulfilled: ‘I think that that footnote is mistaken. Certainly the case leaves it open to the Secretary . .
Cited – Douglas John Merritt v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and Mendip District Council Admn 5-Aug-1999
The applicant appealed refusal of planning permission for residential development of a small plot of land. The said that the inspector had wrongly rejected the application of a Grampian condition on the basis that it would not be fulfilled and also . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 January 2021; Ref: scu.146597