Second defendant applying for planning permission for development of agricultural holding – Claimant local planning authority failing to determine application within prescribed period – Second defendant appealing – Inspector allowing appeal – Claimants seeking to quash inspector’s decision – Whether inspector erred in applying development plan policy – Claim allowed
The second defendant (B) was a company that grew vegetables for direct supply to major food retailers in the United Kingdom. B sought to consolidate its sorting and packaging operations at Manor Farm, where it had a holding. Its proposed development involved an extension to the existing buildings at Manor Farm and extending the service yard to form a new access. B applied to the claimant local planning authority (the council) for planning permission. The council failed to give notice of a decision on the application within the prescribed time, and B appealed.
At the inquiry, the council opposed the grant of planning permission and objected, inter alia, on the ground that the application involved development in the open countryside on quality agricultural land, contrary to the provisions in the development plan. Policy G1(3) of the Warwickshire structure plan provided that: development outside the built up area of a town or village will not normally be permitted, except where: (b) it is outside the green belt and is essential to the operation of a particular agricultural holding, and due to its nature cannot reasonably be accommodated within existing rural settlements or farm complexes. In his decision letter, the inspector referred to the structure and local plan policies and PPG 7. He set out the main issues, the first of which was whether the building and proposed use would accord with local and national policies for the control of development in the countryside. The inspector concluded on that first issue that there were no policy grounds to support the council’s objection in principle to the proposed development. He allowed B’s appeal, and conditional planning permission was granted.
The council sought to challenge the inspector’s decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, inter alia, on the ground that the inspector’s consideration of Policy G1(3) was seriously deficient. The policy established a presumption against development on the site unless: (i) it was essential to the operation of the agricultural holding; and (ii) due to its nature, it could not reasonably be accommodated within existing rural settlements or farm complexes. The claimants contended that the inspector reached a decision on the objection in principle without having considered either condition.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The inspector erred in his treatment of Policy G1(3) and/or failed to give a reasoned conclusion in respect of its application. Although the inspector’s consideration of the objection in principle was not intended to encompass the detailed application of the policy, the way in which he described and approached the issue indicated a serious lack of clarity. At no point did the inspector express in terms any overall conclusion about the application of Policy G1(3), despite its obvious importance. Furthermore, the inspector misinterpreted the policy. The word “essential” connoted something more than beneficial or desirable. The inspector erred in finding that significant efficiency gains rendered the development essential to the operation of the holding, when there was nothing to show that the achievement of those gains was necessary, rather than merely beneficial or desirable. He therefore watered down the test to an impermissible extent. The inspector did not address condition (ii) in terms and express clear conclusions about it, although his decision did cover the substance of that issue. However, the inspector’s erroneous treatment of condition (i) constituted a sufficient ground for quashing the decision.
John Howell QC (instructed by the solicitor to Stratford-on-Avon District Council) appeared for the claimants; Paul Brown (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Harry Wolton QC (instructed by Rees & Freres) appeared for the second defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
