A man from Ingatestone, Essex, has failed in the latest round of a long-running legal dispute for planning consent to turn a goat shed into a home.
Peter Bridle has been fighting for planning consent since he bought the land on which the goat shed stands at Four Oaks, Ivy Barn Lane, Margaretting, Ingatestone, in 1997.
Mr Bridle’s first application to Chelmsford Borough Council in September 1998 for consent was refused, and that decision was later upheld on appeal.
He later renewed his request, varying it to seek consent to change the use of the goat shed to a home with associated surroundings. However, he claimed that the council failed to reach a decision on that application within the requisite time and, as a result, appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
But this appeal was dismissed on the basis there had been no material change since refusal of the earlier appeal at which similar matters had been considered.
Mr Bridle, who conducted his own case, then asked the High Court to quash the inspectors decision on the basis that, among other things, the inspector had erred in stating that the relevant development plan had not been changed between the 1998 and the 2000 decision letters. The claimant based that complaint on extracts from the Essex Draft Rural Strategy and the Draft Deposit Plan.
He also claimed that the inspector disregarded his argument that ongoing residential use of the appeal site had become immune from enforcement proceedings because it had been continuing for over 10 years. This, he claimed, amounted to a material change in circumstance since the last appeal.
However, dismissing his latest challenge, the judge said that the documents relied upon by Mr Bridle in support of his claim were policies in the course of preparation and were not put before the inspector by either party.
He said that the planning inspector could not be required to take account of a draft plan if it was not referred to by any of the parties to the appeal.
As far as ongoing use of the site for residential purposes was concerned, he said unauthorised residential use had commenced in 1989 and had been the subject of enforcement action in 1991 and 1993. The enforcement notices remained effective and, in the circumstances, Mr Bridles argument on that front also failed.
Bridle v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Queens Bench Division: Administrative Court (Henriques J) 27 October 2000.
The claimant appeared in person; James Maurici (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
PLS News 30/10/00
