Lynn v Secretary of State for the Environment and another

Council granting planning permission for change of building to residential property – Works exceeding limit of conversion and extension works – Council issuing enforcement and stop notice – Applicant applying for amended planning permission – Inspector refusing appeal against enforcement and stop notice and against refusal of amended planning permission – Whether inspector taking into account material considerations – Application for inspector’s decision to be quashed refused On May 1 1995 the council, the second respondents, granted planning consent for the change of use Jarmans Farm, Slade Lane, Over Alderley, Macclesfield, Cheshire (the building) to residential property and approved the extent of conversion and extension works. In February 1996 a building officer found that the west and south walls of the building had been demolished and part of the roof removed. The council’s planning officers indicated that the work was approaching a rebuild rather than repair and invited further plans to regularise the position. The applicant submitted such plans. Meanwhile further works of demolition and rebuilding took place and the council issued an enforcement notice and a stop notice. The enforcement notice alleged the erection of a two-storey house without consent and required its demolition within 60 days. The applicant appealed against it pursuant to section 174(2)(a) of the Town and County Planning Act 1990. The applicant submitted a planning application for conversion of the existing building to a dwelling as an amendment to the 1995 consent. That was refused as being in conflict with green belt policy and countryside objectives. The inspector heard the appeals against the enforcement and stop notice and the application for an amendment to the planning permission. He stated that the main issues were whether the proposal represented an appropriate development within the green belt, and whether there were very special circumstances justifying development within green belt. He concluded that although conversion was appropriate demolition and rebuilding was not and since the works had amounted to demolition and rebuilding the appeals were to be dismissed. The applicant appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 contending that, although the fear of precedent could amount to a material consideration, a model condition had been produced by the council for enforcing conversion and extension which, if imposed, would counter the suggestion of a poor precedent being set if the appeals were allowed, and the inspector had failed to take that into account. It was further contended that the inspector had given inadequate reasons for his conclusion that the advantages did not outweigh the harm to the green belt and that there were no very special circumstances for the strong presumption against development in the green belt to be rebutted. Held The application was dismissed. 1. Although the inspector had not referred to the model condition in his decision letter, that did not mean that he had not taken it into account. It was mentioned in the list of documents attached to the decision letter and the inspector had been conscious of it, even though he did not consider that it met the point with which the council were concerned. In any event, if the inspector had left it out of account, there was no reason to conclude that his conclusion would have been any different. 2. The inspector had been aware of the material differences in the facts, as they related to each appeal, in relation to the issue of whether there were very special circumstances which required the granting of planning permission. He had also given adequate reasons for his conclusion that there were no very special circumstances which required the grant of permission. Alan Evans (instructed by Burton Copeland, of Manchester) appeared for the appellant; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, Macclesfield Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.