Appellant making and selling wine – Enforcement notice requiring cessation – Whether land used “for purposes of agriculture” – Secretary of State finding land not so used – Section 55(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Appeal allowed
The appellant farmer owned a 9ha site. In 1991 he planted vines on about one-third of the land and started making wine on the site from his own grapes. Also on that part of the site stood a modern building of agricultural appearance about 5m high. The appellant invited the public to visit the site to see the winemaking process and to buy his wine. Subsequently, neighbours complained to the local planning authority of traffic created by the public visiting the site. The authority served an enforcement notice on the appellant under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, claiming that there had been a material change of use of the land in breach of planning control. The change of use alleged was the sale of wine, the sale of light refreshments and visits by fee-paying members of the public and organised groups including coach parties.
The appellant appealed on the basis that there had been no breach of planning control since any development of his land was “for the purposes of agriculture” within section 55(2) of the Act. Both an inspector and the Secretary of State upheld the enforcement notice. The appellant sought judicial review. The judge quashed the enforcement notice on certain grounds but held that there was nothing legally wrong in the prohibition of the selling of wine and light refreshments. The appellant appealed, contending that the Secretary of State was wrong to conclude that the use of land for the processing of a crop, so as to produce an identifiably different product after it had been removed from the soil, could not, as a matter of law, be the use of land for the purpose of agriculture.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The Secretary of State had not considered this issue correctly. The proper approach was to decide whether the appellant’s activities were included in the general term “agriculture” and were ancillary to normal farming activities, and whether, having regard to ordinary and reasonable practice, they could be deemed to be consequential on the agricultural operations of producing the crop.
The making of wine, cider or apple juice on the scale of the applicant’s vineyard was a perfectly normal activity for a farmer engaged in growing wine grapes or apples. However, parliament had left the ultimate decision to the Secretary of State and, accordingly, the matter was to be remitted for reconsideration: Wealden District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] 1 EGLR 187; Farleyer Estates v Secretary of State for Scotland [1992] 2 PLR 123; Gill v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] JPL 710, considered.
Charles George QC and Gregory Jones (instructed by Manby & Steward) appeared for the claimant; Richard Drabble QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; the second respondents, Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
