General Development Order — Planning control — Breach — Farmer erecting brick building — Enforcement notice — Site to be returned to agricultural use — Inspector finding building not necessary and not designed for agricultural purposes — Judge finding inspector’s approach erroneous — Holding that building could be necessary for agricultural purposes and within permitted development — Case remitted for reconsideration — Whether test of reasonable necessity question of fact and degree for inspector — Appeal by Secretary of State allowed
The applicant, C, had erected a brick building with tiled roof, cavity walls, nine windows and eight ceiling lights on his 40-ha farm at Sandpit Lane, Long Clawson, Leics. The ground dimensions were 10 x 13.3 m and the building stood about 3.5 m to the eaves and a little over 7 m to the ridge. The second respondents, Melton Borough Council, issued an enforcement notice alleging breach of planning control and ordering the removal of the building and the return of the site to agricultural use. On appeal to the Secretary of State, the applicant stated that the appeal building was erected as permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, to the General Development Order 1988. The inspector, however, in view of the fact that “reasonably necessary” for the purposes of the GDO was qualified by the expression “for the purposes of agriculture within that unit”, found that a building of that size was not reasonably necessary for agriculture within the unit or designed for the purposes of agriculture. On appeal to the High Court, Mr Malcolm Spence QC, sitting as a deputy judge, found the approach contained an error in law and a perverse holding by the inspector. He remitted the case to the Secretary of State for the Environment with his opinion and for reconsideration. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The question to be decided was “whether this particular building was reasonably necessary and so designed for agricultural purposes”. The inspector had set out the test in his decision letter together with all the other matters to be weighed in his finding that the building in issue was not “reasonably necessary” for a farm unit of that size.
2. Those matters were for the inspector to decide as a question of fact and degree. The weight to be attached to the evidence was also for him to decide.
3. The inspector’s approach appeared proper, clear and intelligible. There was no error in law and nothing perverse or absurd in his conclusions.
4. A judge on limited material was not in a position to conclude that a building was reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes and designed for such purposes where an inspector had heard the evidence and examined the building in question.
5. Although the building at the time of inspection had been used to store farm vehicles, the weight to be given to the question whether the building was used for an agricultural purpose was an issue for the inspector and not for the judge.
6. Further, the inspector was entitled to conclude that the building was not designed for agriculture regardless of its actual use.
Duncan Ouseley QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the appellant Secretary of State; Anthony Smith QC and Nadia Sharif (instructed by Marron Dodds & Waite) appeared for the respondent applicant, Mr Clarke.
