Golf club located in green belt proposing conversion of former agricultural building to fitness centre – Application including plan for 12m extension – Inspector finding conflict with openness of green belt – Whether PPG 2 properly applied
Located in the Metropolitan green belt near Hever Castle, Kent, the appellant club operated a championship standard golf course with club premises and a luxury hotel, created by the conversion of a complex of farm buildings pursuant to a planning consent obtained in 1992. In or about 1996 the club made two further applications relating to a barn in the complex which was still in its original state. The first proposed the conversion of the barn into a gym and fitness room. The second proposed the carrying out of similar work with certain additions which would require the barn to be extended by 12m. The council rejected both proposals. On appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment the first proposal was allowed but the inspector, having summarised the provisions of para 3.8(b) of PPG 2 (extension of reused buildings), disallowed the second proposal after finding that the extension “would conflict with the openness of the Green Belt”. The second ruling was challenged by the club primarily on the ground that the inspector had failed to apply the provisions of PPG 2 in full.
Held the appeal was dismissed.
1. Since the inspector had directed himself to the most relevant provision it was impossible to hold that he had failed to consider para 3.8 as a whole. The finding that the extension would conflict with the openness of the green belt could not be criticised for lack of supporting reasons as the inspector had performed an essentially subjective exercise. As the inspector had objected to the extension itself, the club could not contend that he should have gone on to consider “any associated uses of the land” which might otherwise have been relevant to the application of para (b).
2. Although the decision letter had made no mention of para 3.9 (whereby a proposal which did not meet the criteria in para 3.8 should not be rejected without considering whether objections could be overcome by imposing reasonable conditions) that omission did not assist the club. Neither party had put forward any conditions at the inquiry nor could any condition be envisaged which would overcome the conflict which lay at the root of the decision.
Clive Newbury QC (instructed by Brachers, of Maidstone) appeared for the appellant; Jonathan Karas (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Sevenoaks District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
