Inspector dismissing applicant’s appeal against refusal of planning permission – Whether inspector erred in approach as to whether development was ‘inappropriate’ within meaning of PPG 2 – Appeal dismissed
The applicant applied for planning permission for the demolition of an existing garage, the construction of a smaller garage and alterations to the entrance way at North Chew Farm, Bristol. Following a refusal of permission by Bath and North East Somerset Council (the second respondents), the applicant appealed. At the inquiry, the second respondents conceded that the barn had been used for domestic purposes ancillary to the farmhouse for a substantial period of time, and had probably been used as a garage for at least 10 years. One of the principal issues at the inquiry was whether the barn was an “existing dwelling”, given its ancillary domestic use. The inspector concluded that following a partial collapse in July 1995, the remaining structure was incapable of being an “existing dwelling”, and dismissed the appeal. Pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant appealed on a number of grounds: notably that the inspector had erred in his approach to the question of whether the development was “inappropriate” within the meaning of para 3.4 PPG 2 . It was submitted that such an error was a result of the inspector’s approach in determining whether the structure amounted to an “existing dwelling”. Moreover, it was contended that the inspector failed to identify the way in which the development would harm the green belt once he had conceded that there would be no significant impact on the five purposes of inclusion of the land in the green belt, as set out in PPG 2.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The inspector’s decision that there was no “existing dwelling” could not be thwarted: the building was derelict and could not be used as it stood. It had, in fact, become a dangerous structure. The inspector had visited the site and it was a matter for his planning judgment. As there was no “existing building”, such development was inappropriate. Planning permission could only be granted if there were “very special circumstances”. Although the inspector found that the proposed development would not impinge on the five purposes for including the land in the green belt, that was merely something for the inspector to weigh in the balance, and was not, in itself, a “very special circumstance”. The inspector had properly considered all matters. There were no grounds for challenging his conclusion that there were no “very special circumstances” to justify a departure from the presumption against such development in the green belt.
Glyn Edwards (instructed by Lindley Johnstone, of Bristol) appeared for the applicant; John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
