Temporary planning permission for mobile home – Application to renew permission refused – Enforcement notice requiring removal of mobile home – Applicants appealing – Inspector applying Annex I of PPG 7 and dismissing appeals – Whether inspector failing to have regard to all material circumstances including personal circumstances of applicants – Whether inspector wrongly applying objective standard of viability when assessing whether agricultural activity profitable – Appeal dismissed
In 1981 the first applicant bought 10 acres of land at Slifehurst Wood, West Sussex, and in 1988 he purchased a further adjoining seven acres of land and applied for planning permission to station a mobile home on the land. Chichester District Council, the second respondents, refused permission but, on appeal, temporary planning permission was granted for three years. The first applicant moved out of his council house into the mobile home, where he was joined by the second applicant when she became homeless. Together they set about making a living on the land, keeping a wide range of animals and achieving a high degree of self sufficiency. In 1995 the applicants’ application to renew the temporary planning permission was refused and the council issued an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the mobile home. The applicants appealed against the refusal of permission and the enforcement notice. The inspector applied Annex 1 of PPG 7 and identified the main issue as being whether there was sufficient agricultural justification for the retention of the mobile home. He found that the applicants needed to live on the land in order properly to husband the livestock and therefore the “functional test” was satisfied, but that the “financial test”, which required the profits of the agricultural activity to exceed the minimum agricultural wage, was not, and accordingly he dismissed the appeals.
The applicants applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1980 for the decision to be quashed, contending that the inspector had failed to have regard to all material considerations in that he had failed to consider the special personal circumstances of the applicants, and in particular their respective ages and the consequence of the decision, which would be to deprive the applicants of their home, principal livelihoods and occupations. It was further contended, inter alia, that the inspector had misdirected himself as to the proper, and or reasonable, approach to assessing the viability of the small holding for the purposes of the financial test, in that he wrongly included in his assessment matters which were irrelevant, and in particular made allowance expenditure on veterinary treatment, unpaid labour and council tax where in fact none had been incurred.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. There was no reason to believe that the inspector had failed to take account of the applicants’ personal circumstances. He had been conscious of them, and of the consequences to the applicants if the application was refused. The fact that refusal of the appeals by the inspector would result in the loss of a home was likely to be the situation in cases relating to the renewal of temporary planning permission and a loss of livelihood was also likely to arise. Therefore it had not been shown that the applicants’ personal circumstances were so unusual or weighty that they justified the overriding conflict with Annex I of PPG 7, and there was nothing unreasonable in the way the inspector had interpreted and applied that criteria.
2. The inspector had approached the matter whether the agricultural activity was profitable on the basis that it was an objective standard of viability to be applied, and there was no reason for the conclusion that he could not have reasonably approached Annex I in that way. Therefore the inspector had been entitled to make allowance for veterinary treatment, unpaid labour and council tax when assessing the profits.
Jonathan Clay (instructed by Shuttari Paul & Co, of Southall) appeared for the applicants; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Chichester District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
