Breach of planning permission — Waste material on to land — Building and civil engineering contractor’s waste resulting from demolition of walls, buildings, etc — Whether planning permission required for matters alleged in notice — Whether “industrial process” — Whether waste resulting from “breaking up or demolition of any article” — Inspector’s decision not subject to error of law — Appeal dismissed
The 7.4ha (18.29 acre) appeal site was located at St Julian’s Road, Riverhill, Kent, about 2.5 kms (1.5 miles) south east of Sevenoaks. The inspector found that the depositing and processing of inert waste had taken place on the appeal site at least since 1945. The inert waste imported on to the site was mainly building and civil engineering contractor’s waste resulting from the demolition of walls, buildings, etc and the breaking up of roads, driveways and paths. The inspector accepted the second respondent’s submissions that planning permission was not required for the matters alleged in the notice and that it did not therefore constitute a breach of planning control. No permission had been granted for the deposit of waste materials on the land.
However, it would not be in breach of planning control unless it was permitted by the GDO 1988 (SI 1988 No 1813), which granted planning permission under article 3 to matters in Schedule 2. Part 8 of Schedule 2 allowed for permitted development of “the deposit of waste material resulting from an industrial process on any land … used for that purpose on July 1 1948 …”. Industrial process meant a process for or incidental to the “breaking up or demolition of any article”. The applicant local authority argued that the waste material deposited on site did not result from an industrial process as defined in that order. They submitted, inter alia, that the word “article” was not a term of art and did not include land or realty. To call a building an article would be to adopt an unnatural and strained construction. The inspector found that the word “article” should not be taken to exclude a building or parts of a building or other structures such as drives and paths.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. In Longhurst v Guildford Godalming and District Water Board [1963] AC 265 the word “article” was said to have many different meanings or shades of meaning and therefore the context in which it occurred was of crucial importance.
2. In the context of the word in the definition of industrial process, it was difficult to see what “demolition” could refer to if not to demolition of a building or something similar.
3. Further, the definition did refer to a process and demolishing a building had been accepted as a process within the ordinary meaning of the word: Sheffield City Council v ADH Demolition Ltd (1983) 82 LGR 177.
4. Further, there was nothing in the ordinary meaning of the word “article” that could be taken to exclude parts of buildings such as walls, doors or floorboards.
Richard Glover (instructed by the solicitor to Kent County Council) appeared for the appellant local planning authority; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Keith Lindblom (instructed by Knocker & Foskett, of Sevenoaks) appeared for the second respondent.
