Building operation — Reconstruction of derelict oast-house — Area of outstanding natural beauty — Development plan policies pointing in different directions — Balancing exercise — Inspector finding in favour of policy of restraint — Whether error in law — Inspector’s decision upheld
An enforcement notice was issued by the local planning authority against building operations carried out without planning permission to a derelict oast-house at Kettleshill Oast, Underriver, Kent. The site lay in the green belt designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty and a special landscape area. In refusing an appeal against the enforcement notice and a deemed application for planning permission, the inspector stated that policy guidelines provided that development would only be allowed in very special circumstances. The county structure plan and the local plan generally reflected national policies of restraint.
On the other hand, Annex D to PPG7 set out the basic thrust of Government policy for allowing the reuse and adaptation of agricultural buildings where that would be in keeping with their surroundings. Buildings which had become so derelict that they could be brought back into use only by complete reconstruction did not fall within the scope of that advice however: see para D4 Annex D. In the present case, it became a matter of balancing improvement to the landscape by the restoration of a derelict building to something like its original form against the harm done to the countryside by inappropriate development. In conducting that exercise, the inspector decided to attach more weight to the policies of restraint. The applicant appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. There were a number of development plan policies which viewed in isolation pointed in different directions. There was nothing unusual in that. There were strong policy and countryside policies unfavorable to the development, while other policies suggested that the development could be permitted.
2. Accordingly, the inspector recognised that he had to carry out a balancing exercise, which he had done in the clearest terms. That he had attached more weight to the policies of restraint was a matter of planning judgment entirely for him. It was impossible to find that, in so doing, he acted unreasonably.
3. Further, the inspector was not obligated to attempt to weigh the damage which would be done by the development to the green belt. It was enough for him to conclude that the development was inappropriate in the green belt: see Pebrsson v Secretary of State for the Environment [1990] 3 PLR 66.
4. Moreover, the inspector had not misapplied the policy guidance relating to the reuse or adaptation of agricultural and other rural buildings. That policy did not apply where they were so derelict that they could be brought back into use only by complete or substantial reconstruction: para D4 supra.
5. It was for the decision-maker to use his planning judgment on the facts of the case to decide whether the fact that the grant of a permission might provide a precedent added a dimension to his reasoning. Usually it did not. If there was a sound planning reason for refusal, reliance on precedent was unnecessary. If there was not, it was in practice difficult to erect precedent as such a reason. The policy itself should usually be enough to justify refusal such as inappropriate development in the green belt.
Richard Glover (instructed by Elliott & Co) appeared for the applicant; Alice Robinson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Ian Albutt (instructed by the solicitor to Sevenoaks District Council) appeared for the second respondent
