Appeal — Material change of use of redundant pavilion to staff accommodation — Whether adequate reasons that residential use inappropriate — Whether proper application of test of demonstrable harm — Whether PPG2 applies to all redundant buildings — Appeal allowed
The appellant owns “Great Martins”, Shurlock Row, Berkshire, and an adjoining field in which stands a cricket pavilion of brick and tile construction. The appellant’s appeal against the decision of Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council to refuse planning permission for the use of the pavilion as staff accommodation for “Great Martins” was dismissed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, by his inspector. The inspector concluded that the proposed development was not appropriate in the green belt; she also did not accept that the cricket pavilion could be considered in the same way as redundant agricultural buildings are treated in para 16 of PPG2–Green Belts. The appellant appealed from a decision of His Honour Judge Marder QC, sitting as deputy judge of the Queen’s Bench Division (September 29 1990).
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The inspector had failed to give adequate reasons for concluding that the proposed use was not appropriate for the green belt. She had failed to give consideration to the nature of the residential use sought, namely restricted to staff accommodation and in respect of which the appellant had agreed the terms of a section 52 planning agreement.
2. If the proposed development is appropriate, then the general presumption in favour of development applies unless there is demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance other than the preservation of the green belt itself. There was no need for the inspector to consider demonstrable harm so long as she concluded that the development was inappropriate.
3. The inspector was in error in concluding that para 16 of PPG2 applied only to redundant agricultural buildings; it applied to all redundant buildings in the green belt. That was clear from Circular 16/87 and para 18 of PPG7 — Rural Enterprise and Development.
John Howell (instructed by Simmons & Simmons) appeared for the appellant; and Guy Sankey (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment. The second respondents, Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
