Appellant depositing waste material onto farm land and laying hard surfaces and tracks – Council serving enforcement notices upon appellant requiring removal of waste material from site – Inspector dismissing appeals against notices – Whether inspector erred in finding hard surfaces were structures for accommodating livestock – Whether inspector should have considered varying enforcement notices and allowing part of waste material to remain on site – Part 6 Class A1(d) of Schedule 2 to Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 – Appeal allowed
The appellant, who owned and operated a farm, had, since 1992, deposited large quantities of waste material onto the land to make hard standings and tracks. The second respondents, Three Rivers District Council (the council), served two enforcement notices upon the appellant. The first alleged a material change of use of the land from agricultural use to agricultural use and the unauthorised importation and deposit of waste materials. The notice required the removal of all the waste material that had been deposited on the site. The second alleged the unauthorised carrying out of engineering or other operations, including the laying of hard surfaces and a track. It required the removal of the hard surfaces and track and all other materials stored upon the land.
The appellant appealed against both notices pursuant to section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In her decision letter, the inspector found, inter alia, that the two hard standings were used as a feeding area for sheep. She therefore concluded that they were not permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the GPDO), as they were structures “for accommodating livestock” within Part 6, Class A1(d) of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. The inspector dismissed both appeals.
The appellant appealed, pursuant to section 289 of the 1990 Act, upon the grounds, inter alia, that the inspector: (i) had erred in her interpretation of “accommodating” in Class A1(d); and (ii) should have varied the requirements of the enforcement notices so as to permit appropriate quantities of waste material, reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, to remain on the site.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
1. “Accommodating” or “accommodation” commonly connoted some form of habitation. A surface upon which sheep periodically fed did not fall within that definition. Furthermore, the hard standings were used for other purposes, such as storage and loading. Therefore, the inspector misinterpreted that part of Class A1(d).
2. The inspector could, and should, have explored the possibility of requiring the appellant to remove only the offending material from the site. She had had the power to allow appropriate quantities of the waste material to remain, but had not specifically considered exercising that power. The decision to require the appellant to remove all the waste material from the site was irrational. It was recognised that some material was appropriate and necessary for the purpose of agriculture. The appellant would be permitted to bring part of the material back onto the site.
Mary Macpherson (instructed by Malcom C Brown, of Slough) appeared for the appellant; Michael Gibbon (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister