Former agricultural land — Extension to residential curtilage — Council’s refusal to permit continued use of extended residential curtilage — Enforcement notice requiring reinstatement to former agricultural state — Appeal against enforcement notice dismissed — Refusal of planning permission for continued residential use — Decision of second inspector to grant planning for residential use — Application to quash second inspector’s decision — Application refused
The properties known as 12, 14 and 16 Bridleways, Wendover, Buckinghamshire, were at the western edge of the urban area which adjoined agricultural land. The occupiers of the dwellings acquired additional land, which was formerly agricultural land and incorporated it into their rear gardens and a new post and sheep netting fence was established along the boundary. The council decided that they were in breach of planning control and refused planning permission. An enforcement notice was issued for reinstatement of the land. In November 1992 the Secretary of State’s inspector dismissed appeals against those decisions concluding that the development had caused significant harm to the character and appearance of the open rural area within the extended green belt forming part of the adoption draft of the local plan.
Six months later a second inspector quashed the enforcement notice and granted planning permission for the continued use of the land as an extension to the gardens of the properties. The council then applied to the High Court to quash those decisions, arguing that they were inconsistent with those of the first inspector and insufficient reasons had been given for difference of opinion.
Held The application was refused.
1. So long as the second inspector had regard to the decision of the first inspector in making his own decision he was entitled to exercise his own judgment. If there was disagreement about aesthetic matters the reasons might be short. It was not necessary for the second inspector to give full detailed reasons for the disagreement provided it was clear to the reader of the decision letter that there was a difference of opinion and why.
2. It was clear that the first inspector attached great weight to the green belt status of the site. However, there had been produced to the second inspector the adoption draft of the Aylesbury Vale Rural Area Local Plan, which proposed the exclusion of the appeal site from the green belt hitherto identified in the unapproved plan. He therefore considered that the main issue was the effect of the extended residential curtilages on the character of the area.
3. Having carefully considered all the matters and the effect on the character of the area, the inspector was entitled to conclude that the enforcement notice be quashed and planning permission granted.
4. The court was satisfied that the council reading the decision letter should have known why the second inspector disagreed with the first inspector and the second inspector was entitled to exercise his own judgment.
David Lamming (instructed by the solicitor to the council) appeared for the planning authority; Richard Drabble (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
