Green belt – Development – Abattoir – Claimant seeking planning permission for additional facilities to meet new regulatory requirements – Permission refused – Whether need to meet requirements of new regulations capable of amounting to “very special circumstances” outweighing harm to green belt – Whether such harm outweighed in instant case – Claim dismissed
The claimant operated a halal poultry abattoir from premises located in the green belt. Under new requirements imposed by the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006, the abattoir had to be upgraded and the claimant applied to the local planning authority for permission to erect lairage facilities, an air chiller building, a distribution unit, a biofiltration plant and offices, all of which it claimed were required for animal welfare, food hygiene and odour reduction purposes. The proposed works would almost double the footprint of the premises in terms of square footage, although the claimant contended that the buildings were necessary to maintain levels of productivity, and that, without them, production would fall below the level that was commercially viable.
Planning permission was refused. The claimant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the defendant secretary of state’s inspector. The inspector considered that: (i) the need to meet the new regulatory requirements was a normal requirement of business; (ii) the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the harm; and (iii) special circumstances did not exist to justify the development in the green belt.
The claimant brought proceedings, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, contending that the inspector had erred in finding that the need to meet new regulatory requirements could not amount to “very special circumstances”. It further argued that an abattoir was not a normal business, since it was governed by a rigorous regulatory regime that was designed to limit the distress to animals.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The inspector had not found that the need to comply with regulatory requirements could not amount to very special circumstances, but merely that it did not enable a building to be built without regard to green-belt policy. Having addressed all relevant matters, he had been entitled to conclude that the development would encroach upon the green belt and that its benefits were insufficient to outweigh the harm that it would cause.
David Park (instructed by Cousins Business Law, of Birmingham) appeared for the claimant; Stephen Tromans (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister