Proposal to extend barn to provide for maggot production facility – Secretary of State for the Environment granting planning permission subject to condition – Local authority issuing breach of condition notice – Enforcement proceedings – Whether authority acting ultra vires – Court refusing to quash orders
In March 1992 the applicant, whose business was the production of maggots for fishing bait, sought planning permission for the conversion of a barn at Claverdon Lodge Farm for the purpose. The proposal caused significant public controversy and involved development within the green belt. Many local people objected and the local planning authority, Stratford on Avon District Council (the authority), were minded to refuse planning permission. The Secretary of State recovered the application for his own decision and asked an inspector to hold an inquiry. The inspector reported to the Secretary of State who issued a decision letter granting permission but imposing a number of conditions one of which, condition 8, stated that no new buildings were to be erected within the area of the existing farm buildings without the permission of the authority.
Notwithstanding that condition, the applicant set about extending the barn so as to enlarge it. It was accepted that erecting the extension amounted to the erection of a new building. In November 1996 the authority issued and served a breach of condition notice under section 187A(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It was not complied with and the authority served a summons. The applicant applied to have the decisions of the authority quashed submitting that, in the light of the whole history of the case, the behaviour of the authority in serving the notice and starting criminal proceedings was behaviour which was outside any discretion which the authority had in law.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. The applicant and all parties had proceeded on the basis that the proposal did not itself involve any extension of the building. The applicant had argued and the inspector had accepted that, because of this, the grant of planning permission would not impinge on the openness of the green belt or encroach upon the country side. The authority had correctly maintained both that planning permission was required for the extension of the barn and that the general development order did not have the effect of permitting any extension to the barn, because such extensions only applied to industrial buildings and the barn was not an industrial building. Therefore the applicants were, on the face of it, acting unlawfully in starting the extension.
2. Condition 8 covered all buildings, not merely agricultural buildings. It meant what it appeared to mean on its face and had not been illegally imposed by the Secretary of State.
3. The applicant had not demonstarted the unlawfulness of the authority’s action and, as a matter of discretion, the court would refuse the relief sought. The applicant’s right course was to proceed with his appeal to the Secretary of State.
Sebastian Head (instructed by MJ Kusel & Co) appeared for the applicant; Jeremy Cahill (instructed by the solicitor to Stratford on Avon District Council) appeared for the respondent.
