3 ‘Reasonably necessary’
12.75 The development must be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the agricultural unit concerned. Under the 1977 General Development Order the wording was different – to be authorised development had to be ‘requisite’ for the purposes of agriculture.
The 1977 Order was given a wide interpretation by the courts, which required only that some agricultural use should already exist on the land.127 It was not necessary, however, that the development be intended to benefit or be ancillary to a particular agricultural use already carried out on the land. The wording of Class A now clarifies matters and re-emphasises the broad nature of the test to be adopted. Note, also, that whether development is ‘reasonably necessary’ is to be ascertained by looking at the agricultural unit as a whole (see Jones v Metropolitan Borough of Stockport).128 It will suffice if the development is reasonably necessary for the use of that land, taken as a whole, for agriculture – and not necessarily for a particular type of agriculture, or a type already carried out there. The separate question whether the development is on land exceeding one hectare (above) is to be decided, however, by looking at the individual parcel of land on which it is to take place. Where a farm includes scattered parcels of land, therefore, the minimum area (one hectare) rule must be assessed by looking at the individual plot on which development is proposed; if this exceeds one hectare the question whether it is ‘reasonably necessary’ for the purposes of agriculture is then decided by looking at the user of the agricultural unit as a whole, taking its several parts together. Further complexity arises from the fact that whether a ‘material change of use’ has occurred is assessed by reference to yet another concept: the planning unit (see Fuller v Secretary of State for the Environment).129 Where a holding comprises separate parcels of land each may be a ‘planning unit’ for these purposes. Although the GDO gives permission to build and use a facility for purposes ancillary to agricultural user on other parts of the holding, there may be a material change of use if an existing building is converted to a use which, viewed in relation to the planning unit alone, is not agricultural per se agricultural user on other parts of the holding. So, for instance, planning permission may be required if buildings housing livestock are converted to provide garaging and maintenance facilities for farm vehicles used on other parts of the holding. Similarly, in Fuller v Secretary of State (above) there was a material change of use requiring planning permission where a grain silo was used for storing grain produced on other parts of the holding, which latter were separate and distinct from the land on which the silo was situate; although the farm as a whole was one agricultural unit, the separate parcels of land constituted separate ‘planning units’.
More legal literature on Laws.Studio
More on the topic 3 ‘Reasonably necessary’:
- 3 Obligations as to Husbandry
- APPENDIX
- 1.4 HOW TOUSETHISBOOK
- REVIEW OF FORENSIC ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
- 2 The Statutory Tenancy
- The Crisis Comes Once a Year
- INTERNATIONALISM
-
Agricultural law -
Constitutional law -
Fundamentals of Advocacy -
History of state and law -
Muslim (Islamic) law -
Professional ethics of a lawyer -
Roman law -
Theory of state and law -
UK Bar -
US Bar -
-
Conflictology -
Ecology -
Economy -
Finance -
History -
Law -
Medicine -
Philosophy -
Religious studies -