Planning permission for livestock shed close to residential property – Committee giving no explicit reasons for rejecting planning officer advice based on local conservation area policies – Whether liberty not to give reasons absolved consenting authority from establishing material considerations required by section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act where applicable – Whether authority in breach of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
In 1984 the applicant purchased Longford House, which was bounded on one side by a working farm. Both properties were located in the Kingsland conservation area in Herefordshire. In November 1995 the farm owner obtained planning permission for a steel framed “polytunnel” lambing cover running along the boundary, though no closer than 20m at the nearest point. No such cover was built, the owner putting up instead a shed-like livestock building resting on a concrete apron some 10m from the boundary, for which (retrospective) permission was applied in January 1996. Following objections from the applicant the respondents’ planning officer reported that the development would significantly detract from the amenity enjoyed by the applicant who, throughout the four-month lambing season, would not only suffer from smells and frequent traffic vibration, but would also forgo the pleasure of taking meals and entertaining out of doors. Despite that advice the planning committee, most of whom had visited the site, resolved to approve the application while restricting use to accommodating sheep during the lambing season. Planning permission on those terms was issued on April 12 1996. Seeking judicial review, the applicant contended that the decision had been reached in a manner which offended: (i) the conservation area policies declared in the relevant development plans; and (ii) the provisions of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Held: The decision was quashed.
1. The proposed development was plainly not in accordance with the relevant development plans which as regards conservation areas declared that: (a) proposals which would harm the character of buildings and their settings would not be permitted; (b) favourable consideration would only be given to developments designed to fit in with the character of the area; and (c) new agricultural buildings should fit in with the surrounding landscape and not cause undue harm to amenities enjoyed by adjacent properties. By virtue of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the determination had, as a matter of law, to be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. It was not enough, as might have been the case before 1991, for the committee chairman to depose that the members had assessed the needs of the farm in the light of relevant policies which had been brought to their attention. Furthermore, since the applicant could show such non-accordance without access to the committee’s deliberations, it was immaterial that a consenting authority did not have to give reasons for their decision.
2. The second ground advanced by the applicant was also made out. Having departed without explanation from their own officer’s advice the respondents could not contend that they had paid the special attention required by section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area in question.
Ian Dove (instructed by Daniels Ferraby, of Tewkesbury) appeared for the applicant; Natalie Lieven (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for the solicitor to Leominster District Council) appeared for the respondents.
