Second respondent granted permanent planning permission for use of site as airfield – Permission subject to condition requiring reinstatement of former agricultural use of site upon cessation of permitted use – Council removing condition from planning permission – Claimant seeking to quash council’s decision – Whether condition lawful – Whether council’s decision irrational – Whether claimant having legitimate expectation – Application allowed
Dunsfold Aerodrome was established as a wartime emergency airfield on land that had previously been used for agriculture. After the war, the airfield continued to operate by temporary arrangement with the Ministry of Supply. Between 1951 and 1998 a number of temporary planning permissions were granted permitting the continued use of the aerodrome. British Aerospace (BAe) purchased the site and was granted temporary planning permission for the continuation of the permitted use of the aerodrome, subject to the condition that upon cessation of the use, all buildings and installations were to be demolished and equipment removed, and the land was to be returned to agriculture within two years (the reinstatement condition). On 13 November 1998 the respondent Borough Council granted BAe permanent planning permission. The earlier reinstatement condition remained in place and also required the use to be personal to BAe.
In June 1999 BAe announced that it would cease operations at the aerodrome at the end of 2000. It made an application to discharge the conditions attached to the 1998 permission. In April 2000 the respondent council’s Environmental and Planning Committee decided to remove the reinstatement condition. The claimants, who were local residents, sought to quash the decision on the grounds that: (i) the condition was lawful and valid; (ii) the council’s decision was irrational; and (iii) the claimants had a legitimate expectation that upon cessation of the use by BAe the land would revert to agricultural use.
Held: The application was allowed.
There was nothing unlawful about the condition when it was initially imposed and it remained a lawful condition. The requirements of Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578 were met, namely, the condition was imposed for a planning purpose, it fairly and reasonable related to the development, and it was not so unreasonable that no authority could have imposed it. There was no basis for suggesting that the condition was now no longer necessary. Having regard to the history of the site, its position in the open countryside and the number of years over which the condition had operated, it was irrational for it to be removed. Furthermore, the claimant was entitled to rely upon such a valid condition and did have a legitimate expectation that the land would revert to its former use. There was no overriding interest sufficient to justify a departure from what had been previously promised.
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) appeared for the claimants; Nigel Macleod QC and John Litton (instructed by Rees & Freres, as agents for the solicitor to Waverley Borough Council) appeared for the first respondents; Christopher Katkowski QC and David Forsdick (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the second respondent, British Aerospace.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
