Planning agreement — Restrictions on occupation of agricultural dwelling — Restriction on sale or letting — Breach of sale restriction — Application to revoke restrictions — Application granted
Planning permission was granted in November 1977 for the erection of a bungalow at Upper Bradshaw, Slaithwaite, Yorkshire, subject to a condition that the occupier be a person employed or last employed in agriculture. At the same time the owner and tenant entered into an agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 containing a similar restriction and a covenant that the bungalow was not to be sold or let except as one parcel with the existing buildings and land. At the time the building was erected, it was assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that the surrounding agricultural land would become a viable unit under a farm development scheme. In 1982, in breach of the planning agreement, the owner sold the bungalow alone to a Mr and Mrs Jackson. They defaulted on a loan and the applicant bank took possession and made the present application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925, on grounds (a) and (aa), to have the restrictions in the planning agreement revoked or modified. The local planning authority contended that there had been no material change in the character of the locality, need for agricultural workers’ accommodation or planning policies to justify the modification and the application had only been occasioned by the wilful breach of the agreement by the 1982 sale.
Held The application was allowed.
The original object of the restrictions imposed by the agreement was to assist the process of making the farm development scheme viable. That scheme never was nor could be made viable. The restriction as to ownership could not be complied with. No need for accommodation for agricultural workers was shown. There is no planning or agricultural reason that would justify retention of the restriction. The local planning authority would not suffer any loss or disadvantage and compensation was unnecessary. Subject to the costs of an adjournment, there was no further order as to costs having regard to the financial advantage to the applicant bank and that the local planning authority were endeavouring to protect the public interest.
Moira Pooley (instructed by Hammond Suddards, of Leeds) appeared for the applicants; and Michael Green, solicitor to the Kirklees Metropolitan Council appeared for the respondents.
