Mixed use of site — Agriculture and residential — Enforcement notice applied to whole site — Notice quashed and permission granted to retain caravans — Whether inspector should have considered upholding notice in respect of agricultural part of site — Appeal by local planning authority allowed
The second respondent, Mrs Gore, owns a 5-acre site at Church Lane, Burghfield, Reading, on the northern area of which, in OS 9744, stands a stable block for which planning permission was granted after its erection in 1986. The remainder of the site is used for grazing horses. In May 1988 the appellant local planning authority issued an enforcement notice alleging the material change of use of the site to the mixed uses of agriculture, stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes and stationing two touring-type caravans. The Secretary of State for the Environment, by his inspector, allowed Mrs Gore’s appeal against the enforcement notice by granting planning permission for the retention of the mobile home and caravans subject to conditions.
The appellants appealed against the decision of Mr Malcolm Spence QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen’s Bench Division) who had dismissed their appeal under section 246 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 against the first respondent’s decision. They contended that the inspector had been wrong to quash the enforcement notice in so far as it affected the whole 5-acre site; he should have upheld it in respect of the site other than OS 9744 so that the appellants could prevent any ancillary residential activities on the site outside OS 9744.
Held The appeal was allowed.
The principle in Hammersmith London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1975) 30 P&CR 19 applied. Once the inspector had decided that it was appropriate to grant planning permission for the retention of the three caravans, but to restrict them both in number and to OS 9744, there were three possible ways in which he could achieve this objective: (1) to vary the enforcement notice by deleting OS 9744, granting planning permission for the retention of the caravans with conditions, and to uphold the notice in respect of the remaining 5 acres; (2) to grant planning permission for the retention of the caravans on OS 9744 with conditions, and to allow the appeal by quashing the notice; or (3) to follow the course he adopted by allowing the appeal generally and granting the planning permission for the mixed use of the whole appeal site, subject to conditions such as those imposed. The inspector did not appear to have considered alternatives (1) or (2), both of which were available as a matter of law. As a matter of law the inspector was under a duty to consider these two alternatives and had failed to do so.
John Steel (instructed by the solicitor to the Newbury District Council) appeared for the appellants; and Robert Jay (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment. The second respondent, Mrs Gore, did not appear and was not represented.
