Planning permission — Green belt — Permission granted for development connected with polo — Developers claiming that permission should be given for general residential use without conditions — Refusal of permission without conditions — Whether unrestricted residential use inappropriate — Secretary of State clearly indicating his chain of reasoning — Unrestricted residential use inappropriate to green belt — Decision upheld
MGH Ltd (the developers) applied for planning permission to develop a site at Coworth Park, Sunningdale, Berkshire. The site was formerly occupied by the kitchen garden and stable complex associated with Coworth Park. The original stables had been used for the seasonal accommodation of polo horses by visiting teams and the owner sought planning permission for their replacement by a polo lodge of the sort that had been operated successfully in America. The developers later acquired the site.
The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead refused planning permission for the use of a polo centre comprising eight lodge residential units, grooms’ accommodation, storage buildings and 50 stables without the restriction of the occupation of the permitted residential accommodation to grooms or persons presently and actively engaged in polo playing or their families, unless the prior written consent of the local planning authority was obtained; and for the conversion of 40 stables, 10 grooms’ quarters and a head groom’s bungalow at the same address into seven residential units.
The Secretary of State, having considered the inspector’s report and the arguments for and against the proposals, dismissed an appeal against the refusal of planning permission under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The developers appealed.
Held The appeals were dismissed.
1. The Secretary of State was correct in accepting that the most important issue was how green belt policy bore on the proposed development. National green belt policy was set out in PPG2, which stated that there was a presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. A general residential use was inappropriate in the green belt.
2. The Secretary of State had made it clear in his decision that he had taken into consideration the fact that the buildings which were the subject of the application already existed in the green belt with permitted uses. The decision set out why the proposal was not appropriate in the green belt and was sufficient to show his chain of reasoning. He expressly stated that he was not satisfied that the purpose of the development was in compliance with PPG2. He clearly meant that if the condition proposed was lifted so that there was no nexus between polo and residence, it would be clearly in conflict with green belt policy.
3. Para 16 of PPG2 stated that the reuse of redundant buildings should not be refused unless there were specific and convincing reasons which could not be overcome by attaching conditions to the planning permission. The Secretary of State had clearly taken para 16 into consideration, but pointed out that this was not a straightforward case which came within the paragraph. Anything less than the restriction imposed in the permission would operate to defeat the objects of green belt policy in a serious way. While it remained desirable to allow the buildings to be put to use, permission for an inappropriate use should not be granted unless the decision taker was satisfied that every effort had been made to put the building it to its permitted use and, that if that use was not viable, that every effort had been made to find a viable use which was appropriate in green belt terms.
4. The Secretary of State accepted that the complex was at present unsaleable for the purpose permitted and for which it was designed. Although it was possible that a polo-related use might come forward in the future, he was satisfied that the applicants had made a reasonable effort to sell the complex on the basis of polo use and had failed. However, he was not convinced that there were no alternative uses to which the complex could be put that would be more appropriate than general residential use. Thus he left the door ajar for consideration of further proposals.
5. Finally it was not incumbent on the Secretary of State to take the inspector’s conclusions seriatim and say that he agreed or disagreed and why in cases where, by reference to some conclusions, the issues in the view of the Secretary of State had been disposed of. The nub of the decision in this case was the application of green belt policy and the failure of the developers to satisfy the Secretary of State that all alternative and more appropriate uses had been considered.
Roy Vandermeer QC and Philip Petchey (instructed by Merriman White) appeared for the developers; Richard Drabble (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, did not appear and were not represented.
