Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment and another

Agricultural development — Sheep farm — Erection of building — Inspector finding building not reasonably necessary for sheep farm — Whether reference to sheep farm relevantThe appellant bought about 40 ha of agricultural land on the edge of the village of Long Clawson, Leicestershire, with a view to its use as an equestrian centre. Planning permission having been refused for such use and for a dwellinghouse, the appellant designed and erected a building with the intention of developing a sheep unit. The building, built of brick with a tiled roof, was 10.3m by 13.3m and stands some 7m to the ridge. There is an inner wall with a cavity and seven windows, which are bricked up in the outer leaf only. An inspector appointed to hear the appellant’s appeal against the issue of an enforcement notice decided that the building was not reasonably necessary for a sheep unit of the size involved and not designed for a sheep unit and dismissed the appeal. The appellant sought to quash that decision contending that the inspector did not apply the appropriate tests for correctly determining whether the building was permitted development within Class A of Part 6 to the General Development Order 1988. Held The appeal was allowed. 1. The inspector erred in approaching the question by assuming that the land was a sheep unit and that the appellant was a sheep farmer. The proper approach is to consider “farmer” and agriculture generally. The presence of the blocked off windows was not relevant as the general development order does not impose restrictions. 2. The inspector’s decision that the building was not designed for agriculture was perverse. The contents were agricultural and the inspector should not have approached the second question by directing his attention to the sheep unit. Anthony Porten QC (instructed by Marron Dodds & Waite, of Leicester) appeared for the appellant; and Duncan Ouseley (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent. The second respondents, Melton Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.