The planning and CIL questions that garden centre and horticultural nursery owners ask

It depends what you do on the site. Use classes are set by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and whether a change of use is ‘development’ can turn on whether you are moving within a class or between classes. 

In practice:

• Horticultural nurseries (growing/propagating plants, often with wholesale supply) are frequently treated as sui generis or otherwise outside Class E, particularly where the character is operational/agricultural‑type rather than retail. A recent example is the Northfield Nursery appeal where the Inspector described the existing lawful use as ‘a horticultural nursery (sui generis use class)'.
• Garden centres (retail to visiting members of the public) are commonly treated as Class E (commercial/business/service), i.e. a form of shop/retail use within Class E
• Mixed activities (retail + leisure attractions + café + seasonal events) can become a mixed use. In an enforcement appeal, the Inspector upheld an enforcement notice alleging a “mixed use…comprising horticulture, retail, leisure uses and a cafe use”. Note however that many typical other uses that garden centres want to add also now fall within Class E so will be lawful  (unless a condition attached to the planning permission removes that use).

Why it matters: if your lawful use is a horticultural nursery (often treated as sui generis), switching to a retail‑led garden centre can require planning permission, whereas changes within Class E ordinarily do not.

Provided the original planning permission was for Class E (or if pre Class E, was for a garden centre) and did not have a condition removing the ability to move to other uses within Class E then adding a café is lawful. (If any operational development (new buildings/extension) is proposed then those works are likely to need planning permission).

If, however, the current use is a horticultural nursery, adding a café is only lawful if it remains ancillary. The key question in deciding whether it would be ancillary is whether the café/restaurant is part of the same planning unit and ancillary to the main use, or whether it becomes a separate primary use (or a material intensification/change in character).

Factors that frequently tip the balance into 'permission needed' include:

• scale and layout: large seating areas, prominent standalone building, separate access/parking, or a café that could operate independently of the retail offer
• hours, licensing and impacts: longer opening hours, evening operation, amplified noise/odours, events, or alcohol
• marketing and turnover: if the café becomes a destination in its own right (especially with third‑party operators), it is harder to defend as merely ancillary

Mills v Estate of Partridge

In 2020, the High Court held in Mills v Estate of Partridge and another [2020] that in operating a tearoom from a plant nursery, this business had exceeded the scope of their use of the land for agricultural purposes only.

The court accepted that the scope of what constitutes ‘agricultural’ activities will change over time, and there are many activities incidental to agricultural activities which should be allowed. However, on the facts, the value the tearoom brought to the nursery, making up more than 50% of the nursery’s turnover, was substantial and dominant over the agricultural use, and as such, it was not realistic to regard the business as ancillary to agricultural use.