Claimant seeking to develop new dwelling in green belt – Council refusing permission – Claimant appealing – Inspector applying PPG7 Annex I and finding proposal not essential to existing use – Inspector dismissing appeal – Whether inspector misapplying PPG7 Annex I – Application dismissed
The claimant applied to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (the second respondent) for outline planning permission to erect a dwelling at Beanit Farm, a site within the green belt. The claimant operated a livery business from the site and intended to occupy the dwelling himself. His proposal also included a residential annex to accommodate staff and students working or training at the stables. The council refused to grant permission and the claimant appealed.
In his decision letter, the inspector identified the main issue as “whether the proposal conflicts with policy for the protection of the green belt…and, if so, whether there are any special circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption against such development”. The inspector decided that whether the development was “appropriate”, in terms of both development plan policy and PPG2, was to be determined by asking whether it was “essential” for the purpose of the existing use. He further decided that “essential” was to be assessed against the criteria in Annex I of PPG7.
The claimant submitted that the dwelling was an appropriate development because, by virtue of the requirement for onsite supervision for the horses, the dwelling was an essential facility for the purposes of an outdoor sport. Evidence from a veterinary surgeon was given that onsite care was essential. The inspector determined that the proposal did not satisfy the functional or the financial tests of Annex I and was therefore not essential to the existing use. He went on to conclude that the proposal did not qualify as an exception to the presumption against new buildings in the green belt and that there were no special circumstances to overcome the presumption against such development.
The claimant sought to quash the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the grounds, inter alia, that the inspector had misapplied the tests in PPG7 Annex I, and that he failed to give adequate reasons for his conclusions. The claimant submitted that: (i) the inspector misapplied the functional test contained in Annex I(6), which was based on need, by applying a test based upon quantifying the consequences of not meeting the need for onsite attendance; and (ii) the inspector misapplied the financial test of Annex I(15) that the business should be ‘financially sound and have a clear prospect of remaining so’, by instituting a test relating to the long-term prospects of the business.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The inspector had identified the correct functional test, applied it and concluded it had not been met. He did not have to accept the claimant’s expert evidence and his reasons were clearly set out. The inspector addressed the issue of whether there was a clear prospect that the business would remain financially viable and found there was not. There were no accounts or a business plan before him. It was reasonable for him to conclude as he did given that responsibility was currently tied into one individual.
Jeremy Cahill (instructed by Smith-Woolley, of Knowle) appeared for the claimant; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke