Horticultural use appropriate to green belt — Site used mainly for mail order sale of imported bulbs — Whether presumption against development — Whether new issue raised entailing breach of natural justice — Inspector’s decision upheld
The appeal concerned the erection of a single-storey lean-to structure at The Nurseries, Stanmore, Middlesex, which is in the green belt. The inspector found that the alleged development was inappropriate to the green belt and that the primary use was not horticultural. His decision letter stated that the business mainly involved the importation and propagation of bulbs distributed wholesale and by mail order to the public.
The site was described in the catalogue as “a six acre show garden”. Therefore, the primary use of the appeal site was not horticulture as such although horticultural activities were undertaken and that the extension, against which the enforcement notice had been issued, was entirely given over to the storage of imported bulbs. The applicant appealed on the ground, inter alia, that at all stages of the inquiry process the parties had accepted that the primary use was horticultural. Therefore, there had been a breach of natural justice as the inspector failed to give the parties an opportunity to deal with the fundamental issue of user. As a result, a breach of the Inquiry Rules had also taken place.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. National policy and, in this situation, strategic and local policies were clear that horticultural use was an appropriate use within the green belt. The inspector’s finding that the primary use of the appeal site was not horticultural entailed the critical consequence that he would need to look for very special circumstances before considering it to be appropriate to grant planning permission.
2. At the planning inquiry the parties had proceeded on the basis that the principal use was horticultural. The inspector did not state that he disagreed with that assumption.
3. The argument that there had been a breach of natural justice in that the parties were not given an opportunity to make representations on what was in effect the creation of a new issue could not be accepted. From the decision letter it was clear that the inspector relied on evidence which he had read or heard and from his site inspection.
4. The matter therefore narrowed down to the inspector’s approach to an issue arising from that evidence. Once raised before the planning inquiry, the inspector determined it against the applicant. The conclusion of the local planning authority did not bind the inspector: see R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Lamb’s Ltd (1988) 56 P&CR 404. The issue was then for the inspector to decide taking into account in his overall conclusion the local planning authority’s conclusion.
5. The submission that the inspector should have made reference to a decision on an adjacent site just over a year earlier was rejected. Consistency in the appellate system was an important reason for the materiality of earlier decisions: see North Wiltshire DC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1992) JPL 955. However, the earlier decision did not concern the current appeal site and, even so, no one could have been left in any doubt why there had been disagreement with the earlier decision when the substantive issue was very effectively addressed.
John Pugh-Smith (instructed by Terence W Lynch & Co) appeared for the applicant; Rabinder Singh (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State; the local planning authority did not appear and were not represented.
