Farmer applying for planning permission for erection of agricultural dwelling – Respondent local authority refusing to grant permission – Farmer’s appeal dismissed – Farmer making second application – Respondents taking farmer’s personal circumstances into account and granting outline permission – Whether personal circumstances a material consideration – Whether respondents erred in taking personal circumstances into account – Application dismissed
B lived in a semi-detached cottage on farmland. He wanted to build a new, larger dwelling to reflect his family’s needs while maintaining a presence on the land. In 1994 B applied to the respondent council, as the local planning authority, for permission to erect “an agricultural dwelling and associated farm office, garage and external works” on the land. Permission was refused and B appealed. In his decision letter of February 1995, the inspector sympathised with the family’s cramped living conditions in the present dwelling but concluded, inter alia, that the proposal was not justified on agricultural grounds and was in conflict with the relevant local and structure plans. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
In 1998 B applied once again to the respondents for outline planning permission. The respondents’ development control committee took account of B’s personal circumstances and resolved to grant outline planning permission on the basis of proven agricultural need. The committee recognised that it was departing from the development plan, and followed the correct procedures for such a case. These included referring the matter to the respondents’ planning and transport committee, which granted outline planning permission.
The applicants sought to quash the planning and transport committee’s decision on two grounds. First, they contended that the respondents had failed to act in accordance with section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by granting permission in circumstances that did not accord with the development plan, and in the absence of material considerations indicating that it should be departed from. The applicants’ principal complaint was that the committee took B’s personal circumstances into account, and that these were not a material consideration, since the respondents had not treated them as such in their earlier decision of 1994/1995. The applicants submitted that the respondent had failed to have proper regard to, inter alia, the development plan, advice in PPG 7, the absence of any up-to-date material showing need for an agricultural dwelling and their earlier decision. The second ground raised was that the respondents acted unreasonably in deciding to grant outline permission.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The respondents had not failed to act in accordance with section 54A, nor was their decision Wednesbury unreasonable. They were not prohibited from making a decision that did not accord with the development plan if material considerations indicated otherwise. Applying Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] AC 661 and Fowler v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 3 PLR 140, personal circumstances could be treated as a material consideration, and the respondents were not prohibited from treating them as such by the development plan, their earlier decision or the guidance in PPG 7. B and his family needed to be accommodated on the land. The weight to attach to B’s personal circumstances was a matter for the committee. The respondent did not take into account anything it was not entitled to, nor did it fail to take account of anything it should have done.
Martin Edwards (instructed by Beveridge Milton) appeared for the applicants; Peter Harrison (instructed by the solicitor to Maidstone Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister