Owner constructing stable pursuant to express permission granted 1991 – Council refusing 1996 application to reuse as dwelling – Inspector upholding refusal on finding that applicant always intended residential use – Whether sufficient evidence of intention to delude the council in 1991
On various dates before 1987 three unsuccessful applications (the old applications) were made to build a dwellinghouse on a site located in Caldy, in the Merseyside green belt. In 1981 the appellant owner obtained permission for the construction of a single-storey building for use as stables which he thereafter built in such a manner that subsequent conversion into a bungalow could be effected with little difficulty. In early 1997 the owner appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment against a refusal by the council to permit a reuse of the building as a dwelling. The inspector visited the site and noted the character of the building and the lack of any physical evidence of horses having been on the site. Basing herself on that inspection and certain written representations the inspector formed the view that it had always been the intention of the owner to use the building as a dwelling and for that reason, following guidance contained in annex G to PPG 7, it would be an abuse of the planning system to allow the appeal. The owner appealed to the High Court.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. While the inspector should have referred to annex D3 of PPG 2 (Green Belt) rather than Annex G of PPG 7 (The Countryside) that error alone did not assist the owner as both provisions sought to discourage attempts to abuse the planning system by building a farm building with a view to early conversion to another use.
2. Whether annex D3 applied to buildings constructed under an express permission as distinct from a general development order, the decision letter failed to reflect the fact that in the former case (as here) abuse could not be established without showing that the consenting authority had been deluded as to the true intentions of the applicant. Such a conclusion could not rationally be drawn from the evidence before the inspector whose decision significantly made no mention of a letter from an ex-employee who had apparently worked with horses on the site. Nor could such a conclusion be drawn from the making of the old applications as there was no evidence to link them with the appellant.
3. Given that issues of intention could not be satisfactorily resolved by considering written representations it was gratifying that the quashing of the decision would in due course lead to a full inquiry.
Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for Halliwell Landau, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the local authority, Wirral District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
