Planning permission — Development — Metropolitan green belt — Continued use for existing building — Appeal building situated on smallholding — Agricultural use as beef enterprise — Enterprise not viable — Permission for agricultural engineering workshop refused — Inspector’s consideration of government policy with regard to encouragement of small businesses — Conversion within one year of erection of building — Whether appropriateness of development to be considered from viewpoint of erection of new building — Inspector’s decision upheld on appeal
The appeal building lay within the applicant’s smallholding at Orchard Farm, Red Lane, Limpsfield, Surrey. It had been erected in 1986 as agricultural permitted development to establish a small intensive beef unit. It was subsequently converted into a workshop just over a year later for the purposes of a small agricultural engineering business. The question for the consideration of the inspector was whether the appeal proposal was so special as to outweigh the general presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt, in particular in view of government policy that redundant agricultural buildings could provide suitable accommodation for small firms. The inspector concluded that, in view of the small size of the holding, the building could not have formed the basis of a viable agricultural enterprise, so that, consequently, it was redundant for agricultural purposes. However, he further stated that, if the building had no realistic prospect of agricultural viability when it was erected, it was redundant at the outset, so that the appeal proposal could be fairly looked upon little differently from the erection of a new engineering workshop in the green belt. He then found it an inappropriate development and that the green belt objection to it was overwhelming. The applicant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the inspector erred in law and acted unreasonably in finding that the building was not in agricultural use and was not redundant for such purposes (having been so used for over a year). Moreover, he wrongly concluded that the appropriate time to consider whether a building was redundant for agriculture was at the start of the enterprise as opposed to the circumstances pertaining at its cessation.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The inspector had had in mind all the necessary matters that were raised in the grounds of the appeal.
2. He had properly considered the issue of small commercial development.
3. His reasons were adequate and there was no need to go into voluminous detail. There was no error in law and the findings could not be flawed.
Paul Stinchcombe (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for Frisby & Small, of Leicester) appeared for the appellant; John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Charles Fay (instructed by the solicitor to Tandridge District Council) appeared for the local planning authority.
