Claimant applying for permission to convert barns for residential use — Emerging local plan discouraging residential conversions other than in exceptional circumstances — Whether inspector erred in attaching significant weight to emerging local plan — Claim allowed
The second defendants were the local authority for an area that was characterised by a high level of unemployment, and a large number of planning applications to convert rural buildings for residential use. As a result, local planning policy actively discouraged such development unless it was linked to some form of employment, such as promoting tourism or for use as a tied dwelling.
The claimant owned land that included a number of disused barns. In February 2000, he applied for permission to convert them into provide work-live units. Planning permission was refused, a decision that was upheld at a subsequent hearing by an inspector. In her decision letter, the inspector made it clear that she attached significant weight to the fact that government planning policies that were to be rigidly applied and that the emerging local plan, which was at a relatively advanced stage, would no doubt echo and emphasise those policies.
The claimant appealed on the grounds that the inspector had: (i) erred in attaching significant weight to the emerging local plan when that plan was subject to detailed challenge on issues pertinent to the appeal; (ii) failed to have regard to a material consideration, in that evidence had demonstrated that the location of the appeal site, being somewhat remote and ill-served by public transport, rendered it unsuitable for full employment use; and (iii) erred in concluding that any residential use of the barns should be for holiday accommodation in order to stimulate local businesses, when no evidence had been adduced on that point.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The weight to be attached to an emerging local plan was usually a matter for the inspector and did not normally found an error of law. However, in this case, the inspector had erred in placing significant weight upon the fact that the plan was relatively advanced.
It was true that government policy encouraged rural conversions for business rather than residential use, but planning permission for the latter could be granted if the former was shown to be unfeasible. Given the lack of public transport in the area, together with the fact that evidence had been advanced to demonstrate that the remoteness of the site would not sustain full employment use, and that no evidence had been advanced to support her contention that the property could be used as holiday accommodation, the inspector had been wrong, on the evidence, to refuse planning permission for residential development.
Martin Edwards (instructed by Ralph & Co, of Newquay) appeared for the claimant; Sarah-Jane Davies (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
