Planning permission for farmhouse refused — Appeal against refusal — Whether sufficient agricultural need to justify new building — Whether failure to have regard to guidance policy — Whether unreasonable refusal to hear representations — Whether refusal to inspect farm perverse — Application to quash costs order by judicial review — Applications refused
Home Farm, Horninghold was owned by the applicant trustees. H, a tenant farmer, lived in a house 200m from the farm buildings. The applicants wanted to build a farmhouse for H and sell his house. An application for planning permission was refused. The applicants’ appeal led to an inquiry whose main issue was whether there was sufficient agricultural need to justify the erection of a new farmhouse. The application relied on three grounds: (1) The inspector failed to have regard to policy H/S 14 in the draft local plan; (2) at the inquiry the inspector refused to hear H’s representations in breach of regulation 11(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1992; (3) the inspector acted perversely in refusing to inspect a farm dwelling on an adjacent farm. If this application were unsuccessful a further application was to be made under Ord 53 that the order giving the planning authority their costs against the applicants be quashed.
Held The applications were refused.
1. The subject-matter of policy H/S 14 was dealt with by the decision letter. The decision maker did not have to refer to every decision in his decision letter: Bolton Metropolitan District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] JPL 1043. A new building making the farm more efficient was not held to be the essential factor for the decision maker. Even if it was established that the inspector failed to take account of policy H/S 14, there was no real possibility that the inspector would have come to a different decision.
2. Whether the inspector acted unreasonably in not allowing H to speak involved balancing a range of considerations. It was necessary to maintain fairness, natural justice and expedition. That was properly a matter for the inspector. The court would only intervene when the inspector acted unreasonably in the ordinary meaning of the word. There was nothing to justify the conclusion she was unreasonable and in breach of regulation 11(2) and even if there was a breach there was no substantial prejudice to the applicants.
3. The inspector was not perverse in not making a site visit as the central issue to the case. Further only when “sufficient agricultural need” had been established would the court consider the second question of impact.
4. There was nothing to indicate that the inspector failed to take into account evidence before her or that she did not have regard to policy H/S 14. In the context of an application for costs there was no reliance upon policy H/S 14 as justification for maintaining the appeal.
Robert Beechcroft (instructed by Fynn & Partners, of Bournemouth) appeared for the applicants; Alun Alesbury instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondents; the second respondents, Harborough District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
