Appellant using agricultural land to accommodate racehorses — Whether such use agricultural — Whether inspector erring in considering evidence of previous correspondence and failed planning applications — Appeal dismissed
The appellant purchased a plot of land in an area of open countryside in order to accommodate his racehorses. The land lay within a special landscape area, and, prior to the purchase, the appellant had been informed that the relevant planning consent was unlikely to be granted. The appellant carried out some minor building work, including the alteration of existing buildings to provide stables, together with a considerable amount of conservation work, such as clearing ponds and planting hedgerows. He subsequently grazed a flock of sheep on the land alongside his racehorses, and applied for planning permission for mixed agricultural and equestrian use.
Local authority officers visited the land, whereupon they issued an enforcement notice. They found that, although the building work might have amounted to “permitted development” if it were to be used for agricultural purposes, the keeping of racehorses on the land did not amount to such use and the building work therefore breached planning regulations. The planning application was refused on the grounds that the proposal would have a detrimental effect upon the character and amenity of the land, and that, due to its isolation, the site was unsuitable for keeping horses.
That decision was upheld by the respondent’s inspector. The appellant appealed, under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, arguing, inter alia, that the inspector had failed to apply the test set out in Sykes v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] 1 EGLR 137; namely to consider what was the predominant use of the land. He maintained that the fact that the horses were racehorses was irrelevant, since the issue was whether the predominate use of the land was for grazing purposes.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Although the conservation works carried out by appellant, and the local support he enjoyed as a result (evidenced by a petition signed by more than 300 people), were admirable, they did not alter the inappropriate use that was being made of the land with regard to the planning application. The inspector was clearly right to discount them as evidence.
The inspector had correctly directed himself to the test in Sykes. Although the type of horses being kept on land that was used primarily for grazing was irrelevant, the evidence in this case demonstrated that the use of the land for grazing was incidental, because the horses were regularly fed by alternative methods. If, on the other hand, the horses were themselves used for agricultural work, for instance as carthorses, then the use of the land would be considered to be agricultural, and the manner in which the horses were fed would be irrelevant.
The inspector was correct to base his findings upon the totality of the evidence presented to him, which included evidence of earlier applications and correspondence that categorically stated that the land was to be used to keep racehorses.
Saira Kabir Sheikh (instructed by Toller Hales &Collcutt, of Northampton) appeared for the appellant; James Strachan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
