Zhang Dawei wrote:
So, what about:

a) Growing vegetables as a large kitchen garden, with minimal
ornamental flowers
b) Vegetables only, as in an allotment
c) leaving the land to lie fallow or remain a meadow.
d) Planting flowers that could conceivably be sold, though the
planting scheme is not intensive, so that it might look like a
poorly-designed garden
e) keeping hens
f) growing fruit trees
g) allowing dogs to run around on it, otherwise keeping it as a
"meadow".
h) Having a large garden which concentrates on flowers for show, etc.

Some of these would seem to be agricultural, some not, and some wich
are not clearly and unambiguously either to my own eyes (though I may
just be ignorant here).


Most of the above would likely fail. I had a chat with my former
planning officer along similar lines. The principle they work on is that
once a piece of land is deemed "garden" then it is considered fair game
for property development. So the step from garden to building another
house is relatively small. The step going from agricultural land to
garden they treat a large and are likely to block it because the next
logical step is to put a house on it.
Even growing flowers commercially would be a change of use from
agricultural to horticultural and subject to planning permission.


--
David in Normandy.
To e-mail you must include the password FROG on the
subject line, or it will be automatically deleted
by a filter and not reach my inbox.