Planning permission for agricultural dwelling refused — Applicant and wife living in farm dwelling — Applicant needing full time farm worker — Inspector stating that applicant’s home suitable and available for farmworker — Whether decision reasonable — Whether inspector applying correct test — Application to quash inspector’s decision granted
The application was for outline planning permission for a dwelling at Long Marston Road, Lower End, Marsworth, Hertfordshire. The applicant and his wife lived at “Brookside Farm”, Church Farm Lane, Lower End, Marsworth, which was not, and never had been, the farmhouse. The farm itself comprised a separate planning unit on the other side of Long Marston Road. It was common ground that the functional and financial tests for a full time agricultural worker on the farm were satisfied and that the applicant did not meet that need, ie there was need for a stockman to live on or very close to the farm.
The application for planning permission was refused. The council (the second respondents) argued that the applicant’s dwelling, which he and his wife jointly owned and resided in, should meet that agricultural need. Thus, the applicant could either share the home or find accommodation elsewhere. The inspector accepted that argument. The applicant appealed on the main issues of first, whether the property was suitable for occupation by a stockman (with or without his family) and, second, whether it was available.
Held The application to quash was granted.
1. The policy required that where a functional requirement was established and, as in this case, that need and its genuineness had been accepted at the inquiry, it was then necessary to consider the extent to which existing accommodation was suitable and available for occupation for the worker concerned: PPG7, Annex E, para 8.
2. The inspector wrongly applied the existing policy in that he made the test of suitability of a dwelling to accommodate an agricultural worker a different one, depending upon whether the dwelling was in existence or had yet to be built. The relevant paragraph, however, referred specifically to the suitability and availability of “existing” accommodation in addition to the consideration of planning permission for the erection of a new building.
3. Once the inspector had concluded that the accommodation need could only be met by either altering the existing family home or vacating it, then that accommodation should have been found to be neither suitable or available.
4. The inspector was further required to apply both a functional and financial test which called for detailed examination which he had failed to carry out.
5. In South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 1 PLR 80, it was stated that the court had to look at what the inspector thought were the important planning issues, and then decide whether it appeared (from the way in which he dealt with them) that he must have misunderstood a relevant policy.
6. With that, and other authorities considered, the court concluded that the inspector’s decision was unreasonable and should be quashed.
Joseph Harper QC (instructed by Ashby & Co, of Tring) appeared for the applicant; Christopher Katkowski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State; the second respondents did not appear and were not represented.
