Farmer filling in small valley to create hard standing area for vehicles and machinery – Council issuing enforcement notice – Council refusing application for retrospective planning permission – Inspector dismissing appeals – Whether works necessary for the purpose of agriculture – Appeals dismissed
The appellant owned a 56ha farm near Congleton, Cheshire. There were no farm buildings on the land, so he had to bring vehicles and machinery, as he needed them, from some 10 miles away. In 1997 the appellant started to build a 0.5ha hard standing area to store the vehicles and machinery on the farm, using waste material to fill an 8m deep valley, in which ran a culverted stream.
In June 1997, when the work was almost 40% complete (by the deposit of some 24,300m² of waste out of a projected 63,000m²), the second respondents, Cheshire County Council, served an enforcement notice upon the appellant. The breach of planning control alleged was described as “the deposit of waste materials, namely rubble, soils and excavation material on to agricultural land.” The notice required the appellant to: “(i) Cease the importation and deposit of waste materials…; (ii) Remove all waste materials from the… tipped area; (iii) Cover the former tipped area with top soil…; (iv) Seed the restored area with a seed mix appropriate for agricultural use…”. The council took the view that the scale of the operation was in excess of what was permitted under Class 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which allows the carrying out of engineering operations to land “which are reasonably necessary for the purpose of agriculture”.
Upon receipt of the enforcement notice, the appellant made an application for planning permission for the works. The council refused the application and the appellant appealed against both the refusal and the enforcement notice. The inspector dismissed the appeals. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1989, against that decision, holding that the enforcement notice did not prevent the appellant from implementing any permission granted by the GDPO. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeals were dismissed.
The inspector had not made any finding that the appellant’s engineering operations were necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Even if he had been satisfied that 0.5ha of hard standing was necessary, there was no reason to suppose that the filling in of a valley was also required. The decision letter clearly stated what the inspector had found objectionable about the substantial work that had been done. It seemed to be manifest that a hard standing of the size the inspector contemplated might perhaps be necessary (and so permitted by the GPDO), could not conceivably be so similar to what the inspector found objectionable as to make it unreasonable for him to confirm the enforcement notice or refuse to give planning permission.
John Barrett (instructed by Masons, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; Alice Robinson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
