Agricultural tracks and excavations under Part 6 notification

An agricultural track is permitted development under Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO 2015, but only where it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit, and only after the farmer has notified the council and waited for its answer on siting and means of construction. Skipping the notification is the most common breach on farms, and because a track is permanent and visible it is also one of the easiest for an enforcement officer to establish.

The size of the holding decides which class applies, and the two classes are not the same.

Which class applies to your holding

Part 6 splits agricultural development by the size of the agricultural unit.

Class A applies to agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of five hectares or more. It permits works for the erection, extension or alteration of a building, and any excavation or engineering operations, reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.

Class B applies to units of not less than 0.4 hectares but less than five hectares. It is narrower. New agricultural buildings are outside it, although extensions and alterations to existing buildings, the provision or alteration of a private way, hard surfacing, plant and machinery and certain excavations fall within it, subject to the class's own limits.

Below 0.4 hectares there are no Part 6 rights at all, which catches smallholdings and paddocks. Those need a planning application for anything that amounts to development.

Read the class that applies to your unit before designing anything, because the limitations differ and they are detailed. What follows covers the features common to both, with the differences flagged.

The agricultural necessity test

Every Part 6 right is conditioned on the works being reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. That is a factual test and it is where most arguments start.

Three points follow.

The purpose must be agriculture as defined in section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock, grazing land and nursery grounds. Keeping horses for recreation is not agriculture, so a track built to serve a livery is outside Part 6 entirely.

The necessity must relate to that unit, not to a separate holding or a neighbour's land. A track that mainly serves a different unit is not permitted development.

And "reasonably necessary" is not "convenient". A track to a field already served by an adequate access will struggle, and the notification is where the council will say so.

Evidence of the agricultural use of the unit matters here just as it does for barn conversions, and the approach to proving agricultural use transfers directly.

Prior notification of a private way

Where the development consists of the formation or alteration of a private way, Part 6 requires the developer to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the authority's prior approval will be required to the siting and means of construction of the way.

The sequence is as follows.

1. Submit the notification with a description of the proposed development, a plan showing the site, and the fee.
2. The authority has 28 days to notify the developer whether prior approval is required.
3. If the authority says prior approval is not required, or says nothing within the period, the work may proceed in accordance with the details submitted.
4. If the authority says prior approval is required, the development must not begin until that approval is given, and must then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
5. Development must begin within five years of the date of the notification or approval, depending on the class.

Two details catch people. The notification covers siting and means of construction only, so the council cannot use it to question the principle of the track, only where it goes and how it is built. And where the authority requires prior approval and then refuses it, there is a right of appeal, so a refusal is not the end.

Keep the submitted plan and the authority's reply with the farm records. A track with no paper trail is indistinguishable from an unauthorised one ten years later.

Excavations, engineering operations and the limits

Excavations and engineering operations reasonably necessary for agriculture fall within the class, and so do deposits of waste, but the limitations are substantial.

Check the figures against the current text of Part 6 rather than relying on a summary, because the class has been amended more than once.

Reservoirs, lagoons and large regrading schemes often fall outside the class on area or depth, and they may also be engineering operations needing a flood risk permit or reservoir legislation consent. Where the works involve more than 10,000 cubic metres of water storage, separate reservoir safety requirements come into play.

Watercourse crossings and the other consents

A track that crosses a ditch or stream needs more than Part 6, and permitted development says nothing about the other regimes.

• Works in, over, under or near a main river generally need a flood risk activity permit from the Environment Agency, including culverts and bridges.
• Works affecting an ordinary watercourse need consent from the lead local flood authority under section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
• A new or altered vehicular crossing over a footway or verge needs the highway authority's consent under section 184 of the Highways Act 1980, and the visibility will be assessed.
• Works affecting a scheduled monument need scheduled monument consent under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which Part 6 does not provide.
• Hedgerow removal to form an opening may need a removal notice, and nesting birds are protected regardless of planning status.

Culverting is the decision farmers regret. It is often refused or permitted only at a size that costs more than a clear span bridge, and it creates a maintenance liability that stays with the holding.

Scheduled monuments and archaeological constraints

Many farm tracks run across ridge and furrow, former settlement earthworks or cropmark sites that appear on the historic environment record without being scheduled.

Where the route crosses a scheduled monument, consent is required and Part 6 is irrelevant. Carrying out works without it is an offence, and the monument's extent on the map is frequently larger than the visible feature.

Where the route crosses a non-designated site, the planning system has no direct control over permitted development, but a track that destroys a recorded site can still attract a scheduled monument investigation or a dispute with the county archaeologist. An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment before setting the route costs a fraction of rerouting a built track, and on larger schemes a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal will pick up protected species constraints at the same time.

Check the historic environment record and the scheduled monument mapping before pegging out. Both are publicly available.

Surfacing materials and visual effect

The means of construction is one of the two matters the council can control through the notification, so the specification is worth getting right before submitting.

Crushed stone or limestone with a bound or unbound surface in a colour close to the local geology reads very differently from imported recycled concrete. Where crushed demolition material is used, a waste exemption or permit may be needed from the Environment Agency, and that is a separate regulatory question from planning.

Three design points make notifications easier to approve. Follow the contours rather than cutting across them, so that the track needs less cut and fill and shows less. Keep the width to what the machinery needs, with passing places rather than a uniform wide section. And avoid running along a skyline where the pale surface will be visible across a valley.

In a National Landscape or a National Park the authority will look harder at all three, and may require prior approval where it would not elsewhere.

Illustrative example: a 320 metre track on a 42 hectare mixed holding, serving two fields currently reached across a wet gateway. The notification showed the route following the field boundary, a 3 metre running width with two passing bays, a crushed limestone surface, and a clear span crossing of the ditch rather than a culvert. The authority confirmed prior approval was not required within the 28 days.

A Planning Statement is not needed for a Part 6 notification, but a short written justification of agricultural necessity, attached to the plan, answers the question the officer will otherwise ask.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. A lawful development certificate is the only formal way to confirm that works are lawful. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.