Permission — Proposed use of building as training college for Hindu priests — Proposed use stated to be same as existing use as residential college — Pilgrims and followers arriving in large numbers on festival days — Whether such use “ancillary” to main use — Whether material change — Whether enforcement notice misleading — Whether prejudice because of absence of reasons in Secretary of State’s variation — Whether time for compliance reasonable — Inspector’s decision on enforcement notice upheld
Until 1971, Bhaktivedanta Manor, Letchmore Heath, Hertfordshire, had been owned by a hospital and used as a residential training school for student nurses. The Krishna consciousness movement, a traditionalist branch of the Hindu faith, acquired the manor after the local planning authority found that a residential theological college fell within the same class of use as a residential nurses’ college, under Class XII of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972.
The determination was made under section 53 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (section 64 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). The manor operated as a training college for Hindu priests and also as a place of pilgrimage for worshipers who came in very large numbers on festival days when public entertainment was also provided. An enforcement notice was served alleging a material change of use; the Secretary of State upheld the inspector’s decision that the public worship and public entertainment on religious festivals extended the uses beyond anything which could be regarded as “ancillary” to a residential college. While it was conceded by the society that the Secretary of State had wide powers to quash or vary a notice under section 88A of the 1971 Act (section 176 of the 1990 Act), reasons had to be cited for any variation. The Secretary of State extended the compliance period from six months to two years.
Held The appeal by the society was dismissed.
1. As it was common ground that in 1973, the established use was a Class XII use, a breach of planning control was established if there was shown to have been a user not capable of being regarded as Class XII use unless it was a user for a genuinely ancillary purpose.
2. On the issue of whether the recipient was misled by the enforcement notice itself, a court should not construe such a notice in vacuo wearing blinkers. Those to whom it had been addressed knew precisely what was alleged by the notice, which described in omnibus terms the activities of the manor.
3. The attack on the notice as varied by the Secretary of State also failed. There had been no substantial prejudice to the appellants by the absence, or inadequacy, of reasons: see Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 3 PLR 17. Such prejudice had to be shown before an attack, based on inadequacy of reasons, could succeed.
4. The Secretary of State was entitled to accept the inspector’s view that public entertainment could not be regarded “as ordinarily ancillary to a residential theological college in this country.”
5. The extension of time was given to enable the appellants to identify a suitable site; there was nothing to suggest that they were to be given time to both find a site and build a new temple which would be the sort of period that would entail the residents having to put up with their difficulties for many years.
6. It had been rightly held that the planning objections displaced the arguments on the grounds of need.
Sir Graham Eyre QC and David Altaras (instructed by Irvings, of Wembley) appeared for the International Society of Krishna Consciousness; Nigel Pleming (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Miss Elizabeth Appleby QC and Neil Calver (instructed by the Solicitor to Hertsmere Borough Council) appeared for the local authority.
