Planning permission for dwelling on pig farm — Pig numbers low due to foot-and-mouth disease — Planning permission refused as insufficient pigs to warrant on-site supervision — Whether inspector interpreting provisions of PPG 7 too narrowly — Claim dismissed
The claimant and his family occupied a mobile home on his property in Hevingham, Norfolk. In 1999, the claimant applied for planning permission to convert existing stables on the land into a three-bedroom bungalow. He claimed that he intended to expand his pig-farming operation, which had been badly affected by the foot-and-mouth epidemic, and, to that end, he had carried out various works, such as installing new feed equipment, although he did not have a specific timetable for restocking.
An inspector refused planning permission, citing para 15 of Annex I to PPG 7, which stated that planning permission for a permanent dwelling in the countryside would only be permitted if it were to support existing activities on a well-established agricultural unit, where it was essential for a worker to be readily available. She held that the low number of animals on the site at the time of the application did not require constant supervision.
The claimant applied, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to have this decision overturned. He claimed that the inspector’s decision was based on a “snapshot” summary of the situation, which was distorted due to the effects of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, and did not reflect the overall realities of the claimant’s situation.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The inspector did not make a decision based entirely upon the number of animals on the site at the time of the application, but had taken into account the gradual decline in numbers prior to the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth epidemic. She had considered the claimant’s avowed intention to restock, but the claimant had failed to convince her that he intended to restock to a level requiring a permanent on-site stockman. The policy requirements contained in PPG 7 were stringent and explicit, and were not met in this case.
David Pugh (instructed by Hawkins, of King’s Lynn) appeared for the claimant; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
