Planning permission — Land and buildings formerly used for agricultural purposes — Storage in connection with business other than agricultural use — Enforcement notices issued requiring cessation of use — Whether continued use appropriate in green belt — Inspector quashing enforcement notices — Appeal by council against decision — High Court allowing appeal — Reuse of redundant agricultural buildings appropriate use in green belt under PPG2 para 16 — Inspector wrong in law in applying PPG2 to open land outside buildings
The appeal site concerned land at Skid Hill Farm, Skid Hill Lane. Skid Hill Farm lay in open downland to the west of Biggin Hill, near Chelsam, Surrey. It was one of five holdings making up the Beddlestead Estate, which was originally farmed as one operation. The farm was sold in 1974 and by 1983 the agricultural use had largely ceased; the yard and buildings were occupied in connection with a scaffolding business and were redundant for agricultural purposes.
In 1991 the council issued two enforcement notices in respect of the land and buildings requiring cessation of use of the buildings as offices and the removal of scaffolding and other materials from the land. On appeal an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment quashed the notices and granted permission for use of the land and buildings for purposes other than agricultural purposes. The council appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. Under para 16 of PPG2 the reuse of redundant buildings was an appropriate use of green belt. There was no onus on an applicant seeking change of use to show very special circumstances to justify reuse under para 13. Instead, the council had to provide specific and convincing planning reasons which could not be overcome by attaching conditions to the planning permission for refusing to allow the reuse of the buildings in question: see Pehrsson v Secretary of State for the Environment [1990] 3 PLR 66.
2. To make sense, para 16 had to refer not only to redundant buildings themselves but also to the adjacent land required to service them including a means of access, parking area and other ancillary purposes. However, it was contrary to the policy of PPG2 as a whole to envisage that para 16 applied automatically to storage on open land in green belt. Land did not come within para 16 simply because it was adjacent to the redundant buildings. Therefore, the inspector was wrong to treat para 16 of PPG2 as applying in relation to land outside the redundant buildings.
3. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the decision quashed.
Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by the solicitor to Bromley London Borough Council) appeared for the local planning authority; David Smith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Craig Howell Williams (instructed by Merriman White) appeared for the applicants.
