Equestrian events — Traffic generation — Permission refused for similar application on nearby farm — Whether need for consistency site specific — Applications to quash granted
The applications concerned land and buildings at Shardeloes Farm, Cherry Lane, Woodrow, Amersham, reached by way of a narrow country road and one other minor road. The inspector, who had to determine the issue of five enforcement notices, stated that the main issues were: whether the equestrian activity was an appropriate form of development within the green belt; whether that activity was likely to give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions; and whether it would have adverse impact on the amenities of nearby residents. The enforcement notices were quashed and planning permission granted for use as an equestrian centre subject to conditions limiting the number of: horses kept to 35; loose boxes to 20; and number of days when competitive equestrian events could take place to 14 pa.
A number of residents applied to the High Court contending, inter alia, that an appeal in 1992 was dismissed for traffice related reasons when the previous owner of a neighbouring farm wanted to use his farm for a similar use. Further, the proposed use of Shardeloes Farm as an operating centre for commercial vehicles had been rejected by the licensing authority for broadly similar reasons. The applicants relied on North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 3 PLR 113, that the 1992 decision letter was plainly a material consideration. They contended that the decision in that case was not confined to identical proposals on identical sites, but concerned a “critical aspect” of the planning issues.
Held The applications were granted.
1. The court had no difficulty in accepting the argument that the 1992 and 1994 applications were site specific. However, impact of the traffic attracted by equestrian activity along the two available access points was common to both decisions.
2. It was common sense that the earlier inspector’s conclusions on effects of such traffic on the character of the area and residential amenity was most material.
3. The second inspector was entitled to differ from the first but if he wished to do so he had to indicate, however briefly, why he reached such a different judgment on traffic implications.
4. In deciding whether an earlier decision related to a “like” case and was either a material consideration or was distinguishable, it was important to sustain public confidence in the operation of the development control system; that was one of the main reasons why it was necessary that there should be consistency in the appellate process.
5. The great majority of the public were not lawyers and whether an earlier decision letter was “distinguishable” should not be approached in a legalistic manner — as lawyers sought to distinguish contrary authorities.
6. A straightforward down to earth reading of two decisions regarding equestrian activities on neighbouring farms in a small hamlet both served off same minor roads would leave the reader genuinely, not forensically, in doubt as to whether the second inspector, having regard to the traffic impact, could have reached such a different conclusion.
Peter Village (instructed by Pitmans, of Reading) appeared for the applicant residents; David Elvin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Anne Williams (instructed by Ottaways, of St Albans) appeared for the third respondent farm owners; the second respondents, the local planning authority, did not appear and were no represented.
