The owners of a Wimborne farm have lost a legal fight at London’s High Court to save their paintball enterprise. A judge rejected their claim that, under PPG2, outdoor sport or recreation such as paintball is automatically deemed to preserve the openness of the Green Belt.
Deputy Judge Belinda Bucknall QC rejected a challenge brought by Newlyn Dean & Sons Ltd, owners of Bedborough Farm, Uddens Drive, Wimborne, to a government planning inspector’s decision to uphold enforcement notices requiring paintball activities at the site to end.
She ruled that the farm owner’s attack upon the inspector’s approach was “unsustainable”.
As a result, the company will have to comply with the enforcement notices, issued by East Dorset District Council and backed by the inspector, which also require the removal of structures, barriers and obstacles used in paintballing.
Newlyn Dean had argued that the inspector’s decision to uphold the notices was unlawful and that she adopted a flawed interpretation of PPG2.
It claimed she was wrong to conclude that paintballing was inappropriate development, requiring very special circumstances to justify, because the structures and obstacles that form part of the game fail to preserve the openness of the green belt.
It claimed that, following earlier decisions, the law automatically deems that almost any outdoor sport or recreation use preserves the openness of the green belt, and argued that the inspector should have considered its proposal that paintballing use was in principle appropriate, and gone on to decide on that basis whether the obstacles and structures such as changing rooms were essential to that use.
However, the judge ruled that nowhere in PPG2 does it say that outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and cemeteries are deemed to preserve openness, and found that authorities relied on by Newlyn did not establish its case.
She said: “In sum, absent compelling authority to the contrary, I conclude that PPG2 does not on its true construction have the effect for which the claimant contends.”
She added that, bearing in mind the fundamental aim for dedicating land as green belt, “such a major concession could be expected to be spelled out expressly and not left to be wrung out of the text as a matter of inference”.
She continued: “This point alone militates strongly against the Claimant’s contention. It is reinforced by the consideration that if outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and cemeteries are deemed to preserve openness without the need for an assessment of whether they in fact do so, the fundamental aim would be open to serious erosion by use of land for those purposes which do not, in fact, preserve openness, a point well illustrated by the facts of this case.”
Newlyn Dean & Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Administrative (Deputy Judge Belinda Bucknall QC) 22 October 2012
Richard Harwood (instructed by Messrs Horsey Lightly Fynn) for the Claimant
Sarah Hannett (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the First Respondent
The owners of a Wimborne farm have lost a legal fight at London’s High Court to save their paintball enterprise. A judge rejected their claim that, under PPG2, outdoor sport or recreation such as paintball is automatically deemed to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Deputy Judge Belinda Bucknall QC rejected a challenge brought by Newlyn Dean & Sons Ltd, owners of Bedborough Farm, Uddens Drive, Wimborne, to a government planning inspector’s decision to uphold enforcement notices requiring paintball activities at the site to end. She ruled that the farm owner’s attack upon the inspector’s approach was “unsustainable”. As a result, the company will have to comply with the enforcement notices, issued by East Dorset District Council and backed by the inspector, which also require the removal of structures, barriers and obstacles used in paintballing. Newlyn Dean had argued that the inspector’s decision to uphold the notices was unlawful and that she adopted a flawed interpretation of PPG2. It claimed she was wrong to conclude that paintballing was inappropriate development, requiring very special circumstances to justify, because the structures and obstacles that form part of the game fail to preserve the openness of the green belt. It claimed that, following earlier decisions, the law automatically deems that almost any outdoor sport or recreation use preserves the openness of the green belt, and argued that the inspector should have considered its proposal that paintballing use was in principle appropriate, and gone on to decide on that basis whether the obstacles and structures such as changing rooms were essential to that use. However, the judge ruled that nowhere in PPG2 does it say that outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and cemeteries are deemed to preserve openness, and found that authorities relied on by Newlyn did not establish its case. She said: “In sum, absent compelling authority to the contrary, I conclude that PPG2 does not on its true construction have the effect for which the claimant contends.” She added that, bearing in mind the fundamental aim for dedicating land as green belt, “such a major concession could be expected to be spelled out expressly and not left to be wrung out of the text as a matter of inference”. She continued: “This point alone militates strongly against the Claimant’s contention. It is reinforced by the consideration that if outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and cemeteries are deemed to preserve openness without the need for an assessment of whether they in fact do so, the fundamental aim would be open to serious erosion by use of land for those purposes which do not, in fact, preserve openness, a point well illustrated by the facts of this case.” Newlyn Dean & Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Administrative (Deputy Judge Belinda Bucknall QC) 22 October 2012Richard Harwood (instructed by Messrs Horsey Lightly Fynn) for the ClaimantSarah Hannett (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the First Respondent