Council issuing enforcement notice requiring appellant to cease depositing waste on farm land – Appellant’s appeal against enforcement notice dismissed – Whether inspector erred in upholding the enforcement notice in terms that failed to protect appellant’s ancillary rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 – Appeal dismissed
The appellant culverted a valley of some 230m upon his farm land, in which he deposited waste material. The county council issued an enforcement notice requiring the appellant to stop depositing waste. The reason for issuing the notice was that the “landowner has indicated the waste material is required to create a hardstanding… the County Council takes the view that the scale of the operation is in excess of what is reasonably necessary under Class 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995” (the GPDO).
The appellant applied for planning permission for a site of 2ha for development, which was described as an “engineering operation to create access and hardstanding for agricultural purposes”. Following a refusal of permission by the council, the appellant appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That appeal was heard at the same time as the appellant’s appeal against the enforcement notice. The inspector held that such development was not “reasonably necessary” and dismissed the section 78 appeal. He went on to uphold the enforcement notice.
The appellant sought to quash the inspector’s decisions under sections 288 and 289 of the 1990 Act. It was submitted, inter alia, that: (i) the inspector misconstrued the words “reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture” in the GPDO; and (ii) the inspector erred, in that he upheld a requirement of the enforcement notice to cease importation and deposit of waste, which would prevent the appellant from implementing appropriate agricultural development and rights enjoyed under the GPDO.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. The question of whether the development was “reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture” was an objective question for the inspector, having regard to the particular needs of the particular unit for the particular development. There was no error in the inspector’s approach: MacPherson v Secretary of State for Scotland [1985] JPL 788 applied.
2. Even though importation and deposit of waste may well have been an activity that the words of the enforcement notice required to cease, and carrying it on would appear to involve a breach of the notice under section 179(1) of the 1990 Act, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, that section had to be read subject to section 181(2). Resumption of such activity would, therefore, only contravene the notice to the extent that it was “in contravention of Part III” of the Act. The enforcement notice, as upheld by the inspector, did not prevent the appellant from lawfully implementing any permission granted by the GPDO.
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 respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
