Enforcement notice — Use of land for horses — Refusal of planning permission for the mixed equestrian/agricultural use of land — Whether material change of use from agricultural to mixed use — Breach of planning control — Whether land predominantly used for grazing — Whether inspector applying correct test
The appellant acquired a field for the purpose of keeping horses. In October 2001, the second respondent council refused the appellant’s application for planning permission for a mixed equestrian/agricultural use of the land. Following various other planning applications and a refusal of planning permission, the council issued an enforcement notice alleging a change of use to a mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses. The appellant appealed against: (i) the enforcement notice on, inter alia, grounds (a) and (b) of section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and (ii) the refusal of planning permission. The respondent Secretary of State, by his inspector, dismissed both appeals. The appellant challenged the decision of the inspector in respect of a council officer’s enforcement notice appeal, contending, inter alia, that the inspector had applied the wrong test in determining whether the land was being used for grazing, and, therefore, agriculture. The inspector’s conclusions were based upon observation of a man with a bucket feeding horses, from which he concluded that horses had not been turned out on the land with a view to feeding from the land. The appellant argued that the inspector had failed to consider whether the land was being used predominantly for grazing, and that he had taken an irrelevant factor into account, namely whether the horses were racehorses, and thus not being kept for agricultural production. The appellant also contended that the inspector had been wrong to take into account the appellant’s intentions in deciding whether there had been a change of use in terms of ground (b) of the enforcement appeal.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
The burden of proof was upon the appellant. It was for him to persuade the inspector that the use of the land was predominantly agricultural, rather than a mixed use for agriculture and for the keeping of horses. It was wrong to portray the inspector’s decision letter as merely focusing upon a single observation by a council officer’s site inspection, during which a man had been observed to be feeding the horses from a bucket. The inspector had been entitled to conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, that the use of land was not simply an agricultural one including the |page:27| grazing of horses, but was the mixed use alleged in the enforcement notice: see [25] to [26]. If land is being used for grazing, it matters not whether a racehorse or a carthorse is grazing on it. It was necessary for the inspector to ask whether the horses were racehorses rather than horses that were being kept for any kind of agricultural production. In relation to the inspector’s decision concerning ground (b) of the enforcement appeal, he was entitled to have regard to the appellant’s intentions; East Dunbartonshire Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] 1 PLR 53 distinguished.
East Dunbartonshire Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] 1 PLR 53
Sykes v Secretary of State for the Environment; South Oxfordshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1980) 42 P&CR 19; [1981] 1 EGLR 137; 257 EG 821; [1981] JPL 285
This was an appeal, under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, by the appellant, Robert Fox, against a decision of the First Secretary of State, dismissing two separate appeals by the appellant relating to: (i) a breach of an enforcement notice issued by the second respondents, Kettering Borough Council; and (ii) a refusal of planning permission by the council.
SULLIVAN J:
[1] This is an appeal, under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act), against an inspector’s decision contained in a decision letter dated 11 October 2002. In that decision letter, the inspector dealt with two separate appeals that had been made by the appellant.
[2] The first was an appeal against an enforcement notice that had been issued by the second respondents, which alleged that there had been a change of use of agricultural land to a mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses, together with the erection of a building and the siting of sheds as part of the unauthorised change of use. The second appeal was against a refusal of planning permission by the second respondents. The development proposed had been a ”mixed use equestrian/agricultural”.
[3] The inspector dismissed both appeals. There has been no challenge to his decision to dismiss the planning appeal. These proceedings under section 289 are confined to the inspector’s decision in respect of the enforcement notice. The land in question, Bowd Field, Desborough Road, |page:28| Stoke Albany, is a field of approximately 6.2ha in extent in the open countryside. There is a public footpath near to the north-western part of the boundary. The northern half to two-thirds of the field lies within the Welland Valley special landscape area, as designated in the Kettering Borough local plan.
[4] The background to the enforcement notice appeal is as follows. It would appear that, in around February 2001, the appellant commenced negotiations to purchase the field. The reasons behind the purchase were explained in a letter from an architect, acting on the appellant’s behalf, to the local planning authority when submitting a planning application for the land. The letter explained that the appellant had owned racehorses for six years. Initially, they had been stabled in various locations in England and Wales, but, at present, were being kept locally. The letter continued:
One of his horses was recently killed after being released by intruders. Therefore he is in the process of acquiring Bowd Field where he may personally look after the horses [so that they] may be kept in relatively close proximity to his house in Wilbarston and the family business at Bottom Farm, Wilbarston (near the Pastures Caravan Site).
I understand from Mr Green that the keeping of horses on land requires planning permission and therefore this has been included in the present submission.
My client’s proposals for a stabling facility are shown on the submitted drawing. It is intended that the building will be of the ”internal stabling” type, and fitted out internally with loose boxes, feed room and storage areas, etc, as required.
The remainder of the letter deals with questions such as access and perimeter fencing.
[5] The planning application form sought permission for the keeping of horses, the erection of a stable building and improvements to vehicular access. But it was withdrawn after officers had indicated that they would be recommending it for refusal. Following that refusal, according to the appellant’s response to the council’s requisition for information, he purchased the land in June 2001. About a month or so later, the council were notified that works were taking place on the field. Council officers went out and inspected the site on 10 July 2001. The results of that inspection are set out in the council’s appeal statement. The appeal was dealt with by written representations, both the appellant and the council putting in written statements. The council’s statement included the following:
10/7/01. Site inspection – four horses being kept in field, wooden shed/shelter on site, hard core laid to field, widening of access, erection of wooden fencing.
By way of amplification, it was said, in para 6.2:
In July 2001 the field was inspected by Council officers following complaints of unauthorised works taking place. It was found that there were four horses in the field, wooden fencing had been erected to partition the field, a small |page:29| wooden storage shed had been placed in the field, the field access had been widened and concreted over, and hard core had been laid over an old track and to the northern corner of the field. All of these unauthorised works very closely correlated with those proposed in the withdrawn application for keeping horses.
[6] The council’s statement also referred to a telephone conversation between a council officer and the appellant on 12 July 2001. Paragraph 6.5 of the statement described that conversation as follows:
On 12 July 2001 Mr Fox clearly explained in a telephone conversation with the Council’s enforcement officer that he had purchased the land, altered the access, laid down hard core, sited a small timber shed, erected fencing, was keeping four horses in the field (including one in foal) and intended to commence the construction of stables; all so that he could relocate his horses chiefly because of his concerns over their security.
[7] A letter in response to that telephone conversation was sent to the appellant. That letter formed part of the council’s appeal statement. It was dated 12 July 2001, referred to change of use of land for the keeping of horses, and said:
I write with regard to the above and further to our conversation today and I note that you have carried out the following minor works.
The works are then described. The letter continues:
You state you are keeping four horses in the field at the moment with a foal due soon.
The use of the field for the keeping of horses does not fall within the legal definition of ”agriculture”. While the minor works you have carried out could have been classed as ”permitted development” – justified as reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture – they are not permitted development because they have not been carried out in connection with an agricultural purpose.
The letter went on to say that the normal procedure would be to request a planning application, and made it quite plain that if the application were to be unsuccessful, the matter would be reported for enforcement action to be considered.
[8] On 10 August 2001, according to the council’s statement, they were further notified about the erection of a stable building in a corner of the field, and although the appellant was advised to stop work, construction continued.
[9] On 1 October 2001, the council received the planning application that was the subject of the second appeal before the inspector. That was for permission for mixed use equestrian/agricultural. The plans submitted with that application were very similar, according to the council, to the plans submitted with the earlier withdrawn application.
[10] The second planning application was refused by the council, on 13 October 2001, essentially for two reasons. First, because of the adverse effect upon the special landscape area, and, second, because the council |page:30| considered that this isolated site was not suitable for the establishment of stables and the keeping of horses.
[11] Further correspondence ensued between the appellant and the council. The appellant purported to notify the council that a general purpose agricultural building was proposed, but the plans submitted were the same as the application that had been refused, and the council returned the notification in view of the fact that the development referred to had already been commenced. Another application was made in January 2002 for an agricultural building. Again, the same plans were used, and that was refused permission on 12 March 2002. It is of significance, in view of one of the submissions made by Ms Saira Kabir Sheikh, on behalf of the appellant, that there was no appeal against the council’s decisions in respect of these proposals for an agricultural building.
[12] In due course, the council issued an enforcement notice alleging a change of use to a mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses. The inspector carried out an accompanied site visit of the land on 30 September 2002, before issuing his decision letter on 11 October. In that decision letter, the inspector dealt, first, with the ground (b) appeal. He noted that this ground related only to the alleged change of use; that is to say, not to the buildings. Paragraph 5 of the decision letter says:
The appellant argues that the land is not being used for the keeping of horses and that the use of the land is agricultural but with ancillary use for the grazing of one to two horses. However it is clear, from planning applications submitted, that the appellant wished to introduce a mixed use along the lines alleged in the enforcement notice. Indeed in a petition gathered in support of the planning application subject to appeal the appellant is described as a ”local retired businessman” who is seeking support for development which will allow him to ”provide shelter for his horses and livestock”. Moreover, horses seem to have been brought to the site some time prior to the introduction of the sheep.
Paragraph 6:
From the inspections undertaken by the Council, it is also clear that more than one or two horses were being kept on site, in particular the appellant does not dispute the conversation that he had with a Council officer on 12 July 2001. Having seen the notes from that site visit and conversation it is evident that there were four horses on site at that time, though the appellant also expressed an intention to put in sheep as well.
Paragraph 7:
In a letter of 11 July 2002, responding to the Council’s statement, the appellant suggests that the Council state, at paragraph 6.2 of their statement, that all of the unauthorised works related to ”keeping horses”. However, this is not what they say, nor indeed is it what the enforcement notice alleges. What the Council do say is that ”all of these unauthorised works very closely correlated with those proposed in the withdrawn application for keeping horses”. |page:31|
Paragraph 8:
Similarly, whilst paragraph 6.5 of the Council’s statement refers to one horse being in foal, as does the Council’s letter to the appellant of 12 July 2001, it does not refer to the breeding of horses. There is reference to the use of the appeal site being an extension of the appellant’s existing activity of breeding race horses, at paragraph 5.3 of the Council’s statement. However, this is not in any event one of the matters specified by the enforcement notice.
Paragraph 9:
Whilst I have noted the letters from the Veterinary Surgeon and from Astley Grange Stud I do not believe that they provide evidence that the appeal site is not being used for the keeping of horses.
[13] The inspector’s conclusion on the ground (b) appeal is set out in para 10 of the decision letter, as follows:
From the evidence available to me I believe that, as a matter of fact and degree, and on the balance of probabilities, the change of use alleged by the enforcement notice has occurred and that the ground (b) appeal should accordingly fail.
[14] The inspector then turned to the ground (c) appeal, and said that it was based upon the contention that both the previous and the current use of the land were agricultural. The inspector dealt with this in paras 12 to 15, as follows:
12. However, there is clear evidence, not least from the conversation of 12 July 2001 between the appellant and a Council officer, that the horses were being brought feed, though it was stated that they would also graze in summer. In addition the note of a site visit undertaken by a Council officer on 29 November 2001 refers to seeing a man with a bucket feeding horses from it. Thus it is clear that the horses were not simply being turned out on the land with a view to feeding them from the land. In Sykes v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P&CR 19 Donaldson LJ indicated that:
”There was no difficulty in most cases in recognising whether the land was being used for grazing or for the keeping of non-agricultural horses. It was only if it was being used for the purpose of grazing that no planning permission was required”.
13. I accept that both the sheep and horses will graze the land. However, it is clear that the horses at least are also supplied with food from elsewhere, and indeed, at the time of my site inspection, there was a feeding manger within the building.
14. On the basis of the evidence before me it would therefore appear that, as a matter of fact and degree, the current use of the land is not merely agricultural but comprises the mixed use alleged by the enforcement notice. This represents a material change of use for which no planning permission has been granted.
15. I am reinforced in that view by the evidence as to the type of horses being kept on the land, which supports the impression that the horses are in any event not being kept for agricultural production. Indeed a note from the Parish Council received by the Council on 29 October 2001 refers to the ”valuable race horses that are to be kept on this field”, whilst the letter of |page:32| 2 February 2001, from Philip Evans, submitting one of the two recent planning applications for the site, also refers to race horses.
[15] Turning to the ground (a) appeal, the inspector said that the main issues were, first, the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area, and, second, the suitability of the site for the intended use. In considering those matters, the inspector first set out the relevant planning policies for the purposes of section 54A of the Act. He also referred to national policy guidance in PPGs, and to a nature conservation strategy for Northamptonshire. He described the appeal site, referred to its location within the special landscape area, and then said, in para 27:
The appellant has undertaken significant planting on the site, particularly towards the road frontage, has restored an overgrown pond, and has laid border hedges so as to provide a haven for dormice. These works have clearly been welcomed by many and, from the report prepared by the Farming and Wildlife Group (FWAG), others are proposed. To some extent the FWAG report depends on information from the appellant, and this perhaps was inevitable. However, I have no reason to doubt that sympathetic management of the land is capable of improving, amongst other things, the habitat for some wildlife species.
28. Nevertheless such works, or steps to improve the condition of the land, should not, in my view, be seen as a justification for inappropriate development. It is suggested that the primary use would remain the grazing of land. However, the mixed use has, in fact, resulted in a significant change in the character of the site. Whilst the designation of the site as a Special Landscape Area may not carry the same weight as a national designation, the area is one of attractive countryside which the development plan policies rightly aim to protect.
29. There is reference to a crew yard having existed in the position of the appeal building. However, I am told that this became derelict and eventually fell down. On the other hand recent developments associated with the current use of the land have included the creation of an improved access, the hardsurfacing of a track running parallel with the road, and then turning almost 90 degrees so as to continue down to the appeal building, the appeal building itself, an adjacent shed, fencing, and paraphernalia including a mobile stable. In addition some bunding has taken place, in particular close to the building, though this is not referred to in the enforcement notice, altering the natural topography of the site, whilst the ”restored” pond has been fenced off, such fencing including barbed wire.
30. It is true that both the building, its immediate surroundings, and the pond are some distance away from the road. However, they are close to the line of a public footpath which, the Council indicate, is in regular daily use and which links, in particular, the nearby areas of ancient woodland and the traditional pattern of agricultural land form between the site and Brampton Ash and Stoke Albany.
31. In my view these developments adversely affect the otherwise largely unspoilt character and appearance of the countryside. This brings them into conflict with Policy 9 of the Local Plan, and with criteria (iv) and (viii) of Local Plan Policy 30, as well running counter to the objectives of Structure Plan policies GS5, AR1 and AR23. |page:33|
[16] The inspector then dealt with the second main issue, and, while agreeing with the council that the appellant’s wish to increase the safety of his horses was understandable, tended also to concur with the council that this isolated location did not seem particularly suitable, especially in the light of recent attacks against horses. He said that he was not certain that, on its own, this concern would have led him to refuse planning permission, but it reinforced him in his views with regard to the first main issue and his plan-led conclusions in respect thereof.
[17] In para 35, he concluded, in respect of the ground (a) appeal, that:
The development is/would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and in conflict with development plan policy.
[18] He dealt with the ground (f) appeal in para 36, saying:
The statement submitted with the appeal in support of this ground referred to a lack of consultation, but did not explain how this might have affected the steps required by the Notice.
He said that the arguments had been somewhat expanded in the appellant’s response to the council’s statement, but only to introduce arguments on the planning merits that had been addressed elsewhere in the decision letter. So the inspector concluded that the steps required did not exceed what was necessary to remedy the breach of planning control. Those steps included the removal of the building and its supporting concrete base, and the removal of the sheds.
[19] On behalf of the appellant, Ms Sheikh has submitted that there are five material errors of law in the decision letter. Her first ground is that the inspector failed to apply the correct test in determining whether the land was being used for grazing. It is said that the inspector incorrectly based his conclusions upon the observation of a man with a bucket feeding horses from it, and, simply on the basis of this, the inspector concluded that horses were not being turned out on the land with a view to feeding them from the land.
[20] Ms Sheikh referred to the decision in Sykes v Secretary of State for the Environment (1980) 42 P&CR 19. She submitted that the correct test was to consider what was the predominant use of the land. The mere fact that horses may, on occasion, be fed from another source was not evidence that they were not primarily using the land for grazing. On p23, Donaldson LJ said:
What an inspector in these circumstances has to decide is: what is the purpose – and I stress the word ”the” – for which the land is being used? If horses are simply turned out on to the land with a view to feeding them from the land, clearly the land is being used for grazing. If, however, horses are being kept on the land and are being fed wholly or primarily by other means so that such grazing as they do is completely incidental and perhaps achieved merely because there are no convenient ways of stopping them doing it, then plainly the land is not being used for grazing but merely being used for keeping the animals. On the other hand, of course, if animals are put on to a field with a view to their grazing and are kept there for 24 hours a day, |page:34| seven days a week over a period, it would not, I would have thought, be possible to say that, as they were being kept there, they were not being grazed. It is quite possible for horses to be both grazed and kept in the same place.
[21] It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the inspector did not apply this test and did not consider whether the land was being used predominantly for grazing, notwithstanding the occasional feeding of the horses from another source. It is further submitted that there was no evidence before the inspector that would have led him to conclude that the land was not being used predominantly for grazing.
[22] With regard to para 15 of the inspector’s decision letter, it is said that the inspector took into account an irrelevant factor; that is to say, that the horses were racehorses. He had said that this supported his impression that the horses were not being kept for agricultural production, whereas the decision in Sykes made it clear that, provided that the land is being used for the grazing of horses, it does not matter whether they are racehorses or carthorses.
[23] It is important to bear in mind, when considering Donaldson LJ’s dicta in Sykes, that that was an all-or-nothing case. The enforcement notices in that case alleged that there had been a change of use from agriculture to use as a ”paddock” or ”horse paddock” respectively. The appellants against the enforcement notices were contending that their land was being used for grazing and that their use was, therefore, agricultural.
[24] In the present case, the council accepted that some agricultural use was being made of the land. Their contention was that there was a mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses. The inspector correctly summarised the appellant’s case under ground (c): that both the previous and the current use of the land was agricultural. However, the inspector, on analysing the evidence, found that there was clear evidence, not least from the conversation of 12 July 2001, that the horses on the land were having feed brought to them.
[25] It is important to bear in mind that the onus of proof in a ground (c) appeal lies with the appellant. Thus, it was for the appellant to persuade the inspector that there was only one predominant, agricultural use of the land, rather than a mixed use for agriculture and for the keeping of horses. It is quite wrong to portray the inspector’s decision letter as though he simply focused upon a single observation by a council officer on 29 November 2001, when a man was observed to be feeding the horses from a bucket. The inspector looked at the matter in the round. He had already had regard to the number of horses involved, and had rejected the contention that there was simply an ancillary use for the grazing of one or two horses. He noted that at the times when the council had inspected the site there had been four horses on the site, and, moreover, that the horses appeared to have been brought onto the land prior to the sheep. Whether the current use of the land was agricultural, or whether there was a mixed use, with the keeping of horses on the land being a use in its own right, was pre-eminently a question of fact and degree for the inspector, having |page:35| regard to all the evidence. He had been entitled to have regard to the evidence dealing with the extent to which the horses on the land were supplied with food from elsewhere, and also to the fact that there was a feeding manger within the stable building at the time of his site inspection.
[26] Looking at all that material – the number of horses, the council’s own observations, what he saw with his own eyes on the site – the inspector had been entitled to conclude that, as matter of fact and degree, the current use of the land was not simply an agricultural one including the grazing of horses, but was the mixed use alleged in the enforcement notice. The inspector referred to the relevant authority: that is, Sykes. There is no force in the submission that, having correctly referred to the relevant authority, he then proceeded to misdirect himself, bearing in mind that the question in this case was one that did not arise in Sykes: that is, was there a mixed use, as alleged in this enforcement notice.
[27] While it is perfectly true that if land is being used for grazing, it matters not whether it is being grazed by a racehorse or a carthorse, it is important to set para 15 of the decision letter in context. The inspector had already concluded in para 14 that, as a matter of fact and degree, there had been a change to a mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses. Clearly, that conclusion would have been falsified if the horses being kept on the land were being kept for agricultural production, for example, to work the land. It was necessary for the inspector to ask himself this final question: were the horses racehorses rather than horses that were being kept for any kind of agricultural production? That was not the reason that he concluded that there had been a change of use to a mixed use; it merely meant that a further possible argument that might have been advanced on behalf of the appellant fell away.
[28] The second ground of challenge relates to the manner in which the inspector dealt with the ground (a) appeal. It is said that he failed to take into account several material considerations. He failed to consider the substantial conservation improvements described in the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) report. Public support for those improvements was evidenced in the petition signed by 300 local residents. The inspector, however, had said, in para 28, that those works ”should not, in my view, be seen as a justification for inappropriate development”. Thus, it was submitted that he had failed to take account of them as a material consideration to weigh against the adverse effect upon the landscape of the building.
[29] Second, it was said that he had failed to have regard to the question of whether the new development was an improvement upon the earlier derelict crew yard that had existed on the site.
[30] Third, it was submitted that since the inspector’s only concern related to the fact that the buildings were close to a public footpath, he failed to consider whether that concern could have been addressed by the imposition of suitable conditions.
[31] If one reads the decision letter as a whole, it is plain that the inspector had had regard to the petition. He referred to it in para 5 of his decision letter, noting that the appellant, as a local retired businessman, |page:36| was seeking support for development that would allow him to provide shelter for his horses and livestock. He referred again to the degree of support in para 27 of his decision letter, noting that the conservation works, for example the restoration of the overgrown pond and the laying of border hedges, had ”clearly been welcomed by many”. He also specifically referred to the FWAG report. Thus, it cannot be said that he failed to have regard to those matters. However, having considered them, he took the view that they could not be seen as a justification for inappropriate development. He then went on to explain in the succeeding paragraphs of the decision letter why he considered that this was inappropriate development in this special landscape area. It cannot be said that the inspector had erred in adopting this approach. He was entitled to conclude that these conservation works, although desirable in themselves, did not justify inappropriate development.
[32] So far as the crew yard is concerned, the inspector had specifically referred to it. He noted that it had become derelict and had eventually fallen down. On the evidence before him, it fell down in 1980, and, therefore, it is difficult to see what its relevance could have been in 2002. However, it is clear that the inspector was well aware of the argument that the new development was an improvement upon that which had fallen down, because, in para 29 of his decision letter, he went on to describe the effect of the recent developments associated with the current use of the land. He described those developments, including the new access and the construction of buildings and fencing, and so forth, but he concluded that they adversely affected the otherwise largely unspoilt character and appearance of this special landscape area.
[33] So far as conditions are concerned, this is not a case where the appellant was arguing for the imposition of any particular condition. As is customary, the council, in their written statement, set out as their fall-back position the conditions that should be imposed if the inspector disagreed with their conclusions. The appellant’s response was to say that the conditions related to landscaping and boundary treatment:
If the Inspector is minded to allow this appeal, with respect these conditions should not be necessary as confirmed the substantial landscaping and boundary treatment has been carried out. Should the Inspector however feel that reasonable further landscaping be required, the appellant of course would be in agreement to these conditions.
[34] That is as far as it went, but it is plain from the approach adopted by the inspector in his decision letter that he agreed with the council on both the main issues. He did not reach the council’s fall-back position. The appellant had not suggested any specific condition; on the contrary, he had suggested that conditions were unnecessary, and merely indicated that he would be content to follow the council’s fall-back position. Since the inspector never reached the council’s fall-back position, there was no need for him to consider the imposition of conditions in any detail.
[35] I turn, then, to the third ground of challenge. It is said that in respect of the ground (b) appeal, the inspector had reached conclusions |page:37| that were inconsistent with the evidence. Reliance is placed by Ms Sheikh upon the contents of the two letters from the veterinary surgeon and from Astley Grange Stud referred to by the inspector in para 9 of the decision letter. The letter from the stud, dated 9 April 2002, said:
This letter is to certificate that Mr Fox sends his mare, Foxs Shaddow [sic] to Astley Grange Stud. Here we perform most stud duties on the mare, ie foaling, covering, vet work.
Foxs Shaddow [sic] is booked to come here to be foaled next month and has done so for the last 3 years.
If there is any other details you would like me to answer, please telephone myself on the above number.
[36] The vet said that he was the principal veterinary surgeon looking after Astley Grange’s horses and foals. He said that one of the mares was due to foal in April or May 2002. His letter concluded:
I confirm that I have never attended as a Veterinary Surgeon, Mr Fox’s horse at Bowd Field, in relation to pregnancy or foaling, and, as I understand the position, all of the breeding aspects of his horses are dealt with by Mr Crane at Astley Grange, Tur Langton.
Thus, these letters demonstrate that foaling and/or breeding activities were not taking place on the appeal site.
[37] In their written representations the council had argued that the appeal site was being used as an extension of the appellant’s existing activity of breeding racehorses. The inspector rightly said that this was not one of the matters that was complained of in the enforcement notice. He was perfectly entitled, against that background, to say that the letters from the veterinary surgeon and the stud that dealt with breeding/foaling activities did not provide evidence that the appeal site was not being used for the keeping of horses. That conclusion is plainly correct on the face of the letters themselves.
[38] The fourth ground of challenge submits that the inspector had taken into account an irrelevant consideration: namely the fact that the appellant had submitted planning applications to introduce a mixed use of the kind alleged in the enforcement notice. It is said that these matters were irrelevant for the purposes of determining the ground (b) appeal. Ms Sheikh submitted that the question under ground (b) was simply: had the alleged breach of planning control occurred? The appellant’s intention was irrelevant to that matter. She referred me to the decision of the Court of Session: Inner House in East Dunbartonshire Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] 1 PLR 53. That case was concerned with whether a developer had carried out a specified operation for the purpose of beginning a development within the time limits imposed by conditions. The appellant council’s submission is recorded by Lord Coulsfield, at p58D, as follows:
Counsel for the appellants submitted that the reporter had misdirected himself in failing to apply his mind to the question of the true intention to develop and in holding that the carrying out of the specified operation itself |page:38| provided evidence of an intention to proceed. She submitted that the proper test was whether the operation was carried out with the genuine intention to proceed with the development…
[39] In response to that submission, Lord Coulsfield said, at p59F:
There are, in our view, formidable objections to the proposition advanced by the appellants. There is authority that the work that is alleged to constitute specified operations must be work done pursuant to the planning permission in question. [He cites various authorities for that proposition.] The work done must not merely be some development but must be part of the development covered by the planning permission in question… However, as counsel for the appellants accepted nothing in the wording of section 40(2) of the 1972 Act supports the argument that there is some requirement that the specified operations there defined must be undertaken with some particular intention. In Pioneer Aggregates (supra) [[1985] 1 AC 132] Lord Scarman emphasised that it is not desirable to try to elaborate or introduce additional requirements into what is already an elaborate statutory code. Although that case was concerned with a different question from the one that arises in the present case, namely whether a planning permission could be held to have been abandoned, the approach is, in our view, relevant. It would be particularly undesirable, in our opinion, to attempt to introduce into the statutory code requirements which were not capable of reasonably precise definition.
[40] Ms Sheikh submits that likewise, in the case of appeals under ground (b), it is impermissible to introduce a gloss upon the plain words of the statutory code, which are simply concerned, not with intention, but with the question of fact as to whether or not the development alleged in the notice has taken place.
[41] On behalf of the Secretary of State, Mr James Strachan accepted that an appellant’s intention could not possibly be determinative as to whether a particular change of use had taken place. But he submitted that the inspector had not approached the matter in that way. Whilst intention could be determinative, it was relevant. If one were asking whether there had been a change from use A to uses A and B, the fact that the appellant had said that he intended to change to uses A and B is relevant as part of the overall picture. In the present case, save for agricultural use, there had been no prior use of the land. Horses were then introduced onto the land. One is entitled to ask why that was done, in attempting to answer the question as to whether the horses are being kept on the land. It is part of the overall picture. Thus, an appellant’s intentions can be relevant, but they will be determinative.
[42] The present case can be distinguished from East Dunbartonshire, where the local planning authority were trying to place a gloss upon the statute and superimpose upon the carrying out of operations the proposition that they had to have been carried out with a particular intention. No such gloss has been added to the statute by the inspector in the present case. He was simply asking himself the question of fact under ground (b): was the land being used for a mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses? There is no doubt that the horses were on the land. |page:39| The appellant was arguing that one or two horses were being grazed as an ancillary use. In evaluating that assertion, the inspector was perfectly entitled to have had regard to the earlier stated intentions of the appellant to establish, not a use ancillary to agriculture, but a mixed use. Indeed, the inspector had before him an appeal seeking a permission for a mixed equestrian/agricultural use, utilising substantially the same buildings as those that had been erected on the site.
[43] It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the inspector had failed to consider whether the building that had been erected conformed with the stipulations for permitted development for agricultural buildings in Part 6 (Class A) of Schedule 2 (Article 3) to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 19951. The short answer to that proposition is that it was not argued on behalf of the appellant that the building was permitted development. There was a reference in the appellant’s representations to the size of the building, but no suggestion that it was permitted development. Even if there had been such a suggestion, it would have been doomed to fail once the inspector had concluded that the land was not simply being used for agricultural purposes, but it was being used together with the buildings for a mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses. The erection of a building for such a mixed purpose is not permitted development.
—————————————————————————————————-
1 SI 1995/418
—————————————————————————————————-
[44] Last, it is submitted that the inspector failed to undertake any balancing exercise to decide whether the removal of the building was a disproportionate obligation. Its removal would be quite disproportionate, because shelter and storage would be consistent with the grazing of animals.
[45] The inspector dealt with the way in which the appellant had put the appeal under ground (f); that is to say, that the requirements of the enforcement notice were excessive. The particulars in support of ground (f) referred to a questionnaire that had been completed and returned, and contended that there had been no consultation in accordance with the Good Practice Guide for Local Planning Authorities. The matter was further referred to in subsequent representations:
The Inspectors [sic] attention is drawn to the fact that after Section 330 Questionnaire was completed and returned, there was no consultation requested by the Council in accordance with DETR ”Good Practice Guide for Local Planning Authorities July 1997”. The Council state that the development causes ”harm to the visual amenity of the countryside and the SLA”, the Inspector is asked to disregard this statement. The development incorporating the farm building (140 metres from the main B669 Road) is well screened and does not have any detrimental effect whatsoever on the visual character and amenity of the open countryside or special landscape area.
[46] Hence, the inspector’s observations in response to the ground (f) appeal: that the lack of consultation did not explain how this might have |page:40| affected the steps required by the notice, and, in so far as the ground had been expanded, it was by way of introducing arguments on the planning merits that the inspector had considered elsewhere when dealing with the ground (a) appeal. The inspector had been obliged to deal with the grounds as put before him. His response to those grounds had been impeccable.
[47] So far as the wider issue of a balancing exercise is concerned, the inspector had, of course, been perfectly prepared to balance the suitability of this particular site for the keeping of horses against the impact of the development upon the special landscape area. However, he found against the appellant on both aspects of the balance. Not merely was there an adverse impact upon the special landscape area, but this isolated location was not particularly suitable for the keeping of horses. Thus, when the balance was struck, it came down decisively against the appellant.
[48] If one stands back and looks at the case overall, it is plain that the appellant was quite determined to use this land for the keeping of his horses, despite the fact that he had been warned by the planning authority that he would be unlikely to be granted planning permission for such a use. He persisted and received an enforcement notice. I have already referred to the fact that the onus lies upon an appellant to an enforcement notice in respect of grounds (b) and (c). Thus, the appellant had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, either that the change of use alleged in the enforcement notice had not taken place and/or that it was not in breach of planning control. It was, of course, open to the appellant to ask for an inquiry and to give detailed evidence on oath as to the extent to which the horses were or were not being fed from other sources, and to give detailed evidence as to the extent to which his original intentions, as expressed in the withdrawn application, had or had not been modified. He chose not to do so, and if one looks at the totality of the material before the inspector, it is not in the least surprising that he reached the conclusions set out in his decision letter. It is difficult to see how he could reasonably have reached any other conclusions on the totality of the material before him.
[49] For all of these reasons, this appeal must be dismissed. Thank you both very much.
Appeal dismissed.
