Judicial review of planning permission allowing conversion of barn to a dwelling – Planning officer advising committee of general shift in revised PPG 7 against residential reuse but omitting passage dealing specifically with buildings in open countryside – Objector claiming that committee left unaware of opportunity to equate application with application for new building – Permission quashed
The applicant (the objector) owned and occupied the Old Vicarage in Chetwood, Buckinghamshire, which adjoined Manor Farm. Standing on the farm at the boundary between the two properties was a well-maintained barn that had for many years been used for the storage of agricultural machinery. On 23 May 1997 the owners of the farm applied for planning permission to convert the barn into a dwelling. Permission was granted on 11 September 1997 after the relevant committee had received a report from the council’s planning officer, which drew the committee’s attention to the revised text of PPG 7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development), which was issued in February 1997. Comparing the guidance on the re-use of rural buildings with that given in the 1992 version, and speaking of a “change of emphasis”, the report noted that whereas the old versio , subject to certain qualifications, favoured reuse in general, the revised version drew a firm distinction between reuse for commercial and recreational purposes and the conversion of such buildings into dwellings. The committee were informed that, whereas the former remained acceptable, the latter should generally not be permitted. Proceeding by way of judicial review, the objector sought to have the decision quashed on the ground that the report had made no mention of para 3.16 of the revised PPG, which, as regards buildings located in the open countryside, advised that applications for residential reuse should be examined with “particular care”, and that it might be appropriate to apply a policy of strict control similar to that advised by para 3.21 for new buildings in open countryside.
Held: The application was allowed.
The planning officer had correctly alerted the committee to the fact that the local plan did not reflect the reported change of emphasis as regards the reuse of rural buildings. However, since the farm was located in open countryside, he had, by omitting the specific guidance given in para 3.16, failed to make the committee aware that it was open to them to treat the application as if it were an application for a new building. Since it could not be said with confidence that the committee would have reached the same conclusion, the proper course was to remit the application for fresh consideration by the council.
Reuben Taylor (instructed by Clare & Co) appeared for the applicant; Anne Williams (instructed by the solicitor to Aylesbury Vale District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Alan Cooklin, barrister
