Deakin v First Secretary of State (Case Comment)
Citation: J.P.L. 2007, Jul, 1073-1084
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Agricultural land; Agricultural use; Caravans; Enforcement notices; Material change of use; Planning inspectors
Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…shelter for people as would be a suitable building. I reject the contention that because of its nature and ordinary use and associations the stationing of a typical caravan on a planning unit used for agriculture must be regarded as incapable of being incidental to primary use for agriculture.” 24. Parker L.J. in his judgment includes one passage of particular importance (p.17): “The question is, therefore, Mr Day’s actions were such that the plot of land upon which the caravan stood was, on its arrival, still being used for the purpose of agriculture, or whether, as the planning authority contend, it was then being used for mixed uses, namely, use for the purposes of agriculture and use for stationing a caravan. This contention is in my view artificial in the extreme. If it were right, it would …
…fact’. In response to this, the appellant’s original grounds of appeal said– ‘The appellant denies that he has changed the use from agricultural to use of land for stationing two caravans, one for residential purposes and the other for a use unconnected J.P.L. 1081 1081 with agriculture. Both caravans are for agricultural use. The larger caravan is used for storing agricultural equipment, agricultural paperwork, shelter, showering and toilet facilities and for sleeping overnight by the appellant, when necessary, in order to work on the farm. The smaller caravan is used for shelter only, when necessary in order to work on that part of the farm where it is stationed’. 16. I do not however agree with these arguments. There can be no doubt that this site is used for the stationing of caravans–they have been on the land for some time for all to see, and remained so at the date of my own inspection. As to their actual use, from the evidence which has been provided, together with the results of my own inspection as described previously above, I …
…in evidence has acknowledged that he has stayed in this unit overnight at least from time to time, then a use for residential purposes has in my judgment been demonstrated so far as the mobile home is concerned.17. As to the touring caravan, at the time of my inspection I did not see any tools, equipment, materials, nor other items inside which might be associated with agricultural activities, and none were drawn to my attention on the day. In these circumstances, an occasional use for shelter in inclement weather, or for the provision of toilet facilities, either for use by the appellant himself or conceivably by others who might resort to this site at times to avail themselves of …
…consider that a permanent nor full-time presence would have to appertain in order to justify the description of ‘residential use’ as alleged in the enforcement notice in this instance. It would be sufficient to my mind, as alluded to earlier in paragraph 16 above, to be able to demonstrate that this indeed was the principal or primary use of the mobile home, which I have found to be the case. I am also satisfied that in all likelihood the use of the touring caravan as described in the notice, as unconnected with the agriculture, should be found to be correct. 21. In the light of all the above, I am minded to endorse the …
…inspector is saying this: even if the appellant was right on the approach, that the land and caravan was an agricultural use, it would be difficult for him to show that the land was in beneficial agricultural use. However, the inspector then went on in para.19 to conclude, as is conceded by the Secretary of State, that the land was in agricultural use. I am bound to say this, had he not conceded that, I would have held that there was no finding as to whether or not the land was in agricultural use, but that is the concession of the Secretary of State and I am quite prepared to accept it. Once the inspector had accepted that the land was in agricultural use, he then had to determine whether the stationing of the caravans and their use affected that agricultural use such that there was a material change of use. 31. My next criticism of this paragraph is that he gets involved at a later stage in this decision (at para.36) on whether or not the agricultural purpose of this land was turning a profit. That is not part of the definition of agriculture. 32. He then (at para.20) goes on to consider whether or not the caravan is being used for residential purposes, in the sense that he asked the question whether the caravan is being used as a residence. But what he does not do is to ask the question of whether the use of the planning unit had changed. 33. In the two para.21s of the inspector’s report Mr Palmer makes submissions to me that there he addressed whether or not the use of the caravan was residential. The difficulty is that the last two sentences in the first para.21 make it plain that he is only addressing the use of the mobile home in the one case and the touring caravan in the other and not considering whether or not there had been a change of use of the planning unit. 34. The difficulty which the inspector got himself into is borne out by a submission Mr…
12.
Planning – agricultural use and diversification
Citation: Farm Law 2004, 98, 11-13
Subject: Planning; Agriculture
Keywords: Agricultural land; Horses; Mobile homes; Planning inspectors; Planning permission
Documents: Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…LJI0000451714FARM LAW 000000989988 Legal Journals Index 1072 Article – Journal Case Comment Planning – agricultural use and diversification. Farm Law 2004, 98, 11-13 Farm Law Planning Agriculture Agricultural land Horses Mobile homes Planning inspectors Planning permission Comments on the Queen’s Bench Division’s judgment in Guildford BC v First Secretary of State on …
…whether a planning inspector was correct to consider the benefit for a farm’s livery business of the stationing of a mobile home on Green Belt land along with the benefit for its agricultural work where the inspector believed that the livery business complemented its agricultural business. Considers whether the inspector had the jurisdiction to make a pragmatic interpretation of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (PPG 7) in relation to a mixed business of livery and agriculture. Guildford BC v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 1291 (Admin) (QBD (Admin…
13.
Deakin v First Secretary of State Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 6 December 2006
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Agricultural use; Change of use; Enforcement notices; Planning control; Planning inspectors
Where Reported: [2006] EWHC 3402 (Admin); [2007] J.P.L. 1073; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…shelter for people as would be a suitable building. I reject the contention that because of its nature and ordinary use and associations the stationing of a typical caravan on a planning unit used for agriculture must be regarded as incapable of being incidental to primary use for agriculture.” Parker LJ in his judgment includes one passage of particular importance (page 17): “The question is, therefore, Mr Day’s actions were such that the plot of land upon which the caravan stood was, on its arrival, still being used for the purpose of agriculture, or whether, as the planning authority contend, it was then being used for mixed uses, namely, use for the purposes of agriculture and use for stationing a caravan. This contention is in my view artificial in the extreme. If it were right, it would …
…fact’. In response to this, the appellant’s original grounds of appeal said — ‘The appellant denies that he has changed the use from agricultural to use of land for stationing two caravans, one for residential purposes and the other for a use unconnected with agriculture. Both caravans are for agricultural use. The larger caravan is used for storing agricultural equipment, agricultural paperwork, shelter, showering and toilet facilities and for sleeping overnight by the appellant, when necessary, in order to work on the farm. The smaller caravan is used for shelter only, when necessary in order to work on that part of the farm where it is stationed’. 16. I do not however agree with these arguments. There can be no doubt that this site is used for the stationing of caravans — they have been on the land for some time for all to see, and remained so at the date of my own inspection. As to their actual use, from the evidence which has been provided, together with the results of my own inspection as described previously above, I …
…in evidence has acknowledged that he has stayed in this unit overnight at least from time to time, then a use for residential purposes has in my judgment been demonstrated so far as the mobile home is concerned.17. As to the touring caravan, at the time of my inspection I did not see any tools, equipment, materials, nor other items inside which might be associated with agricultural activities, and none were drawn to my attention on the day. In these circumstances, an occasional use for shelter in inclement weather, or for the provision of toilet facilities, either for use by the appellant himself or conceivably by others who might resort to this site at times to avail themselves of …
…consider that a permanent nor full-time presence would have to appertain in order to justify the description of ‘residential use’ as alleged in the enforcement notice in this instance. It would be sufficient to my mind, as alluded to earlier in paragraph 16 above, to be able to demonstrate that this indeed was the principal or primary use of the mobile home, which I have found to be the case. I am also satisfied that in all likelihood the use of the touring caravan as described in the notice, as unconnected with the agriculture, should be found to be correct. 21. In the light of all the above, I am minded to endorse the …
…inspector is saying this: even if the appellant was right on the approach, that the land and caravan was an agricultural use, it would be difficult for him to show that the land was in beneficial agricultural use. However, the inspector then went on in paragraph 19 to conclude, as is conceded by the Secretary of State, that the land was in agricultural use. I am bound to say this, had he not conceded that, I would have held that there was no finding as to whether or not the land was in agricultural use, but that is the concession of the Secretary of State and I am quite prepared to accept it. Once the inspector had accepted that the land was in agricultural use, he then had to determine whether the stationing of the caravans and their use affected that agricultural use such that there was a material change of use. My next criticism of this paragraph is that he gets involved at a later stage in this decision (at paragraph 36) on whether or not the agricultural purpose of this land was turning a profit. That is not part of the definition of agriculture. He then (at paragraph 20) goes on to consider whether or not the caravan is being used for residential purposes, in the sense that he asked the question whether the caravan is being used as a residence. But what he does not do is to ask the question of whether the use of the planning unit had changed. In the two paragraph 21s of the inspector’s report Mr Palmer makes submissions to me that there he addressed whether or not the use of the caravan was residential. The difficulty is that the last two sentences in the first paragraph 21 make it plain that he is only addressing the use of the mobile home in the one case and the touring caravan in the other and not considering whether or not there had been a change of use of the planning unit. The difficulty which the inspector got himself into is borne out by a submission Mr Palmer…
14.
R. (on the application of Morgan) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), 21 November 2002
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Agricultural land; Enforcement notices; Mobile homes; Planning permission; Planning policy guidance
Where Reported: [2002] EWHC 2652 (Admin); Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…R. (on the application of Morgan)Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions MORGAN V …
…2002] EWHC 2652 (Admin)UKEW England and Wales Official 21 November 2002 Sullivan, J. Sullivan J (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Agricultural land Enforcement notices Mobile homes Planning permission Planning policy guidance enforcement notices agricultural land removal of residential units used in connection with permaculture site application of functional need test in PPG 7 M appealed against a planning inspector’s refusal of her appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the removal of residential units from a site used by M for permaculture. M had been granted temporary planning permission to allow such residential use for a three year period from January 1997 to allow her to establish a permaculture system on the site. By …
…the inspector’s site visit in March 2002, however, there was little evidence of food production on the site, with other uses, such as forestry and medicinal plant production, also taking place. M contended that (1) the inspector had applied the wrong test in terms of the functional need for accommodation on the site for the purposes of the agricultural exemption in PPG 7, and (2) the enforcement notice was in breach of her rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8 and Art.9. To access the full text of this judgment please use the link above. Summary material is being prepared and will be published as soon as possible. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the inspector had correctly applied the functional requirements of PPG 7 in determining that there was no effective agricultural activity on the site as at the date of the inspection. Although the inspector accepted that permaculture embraced the whole …
…development and included forestry and medicinal and non edible plant cultivation, the functional need test in PPG 7 required primarily agricultural use to be considered when determining the need for long term residence on the site. The enforcement notice was not disproportionate …
…Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8) s.289Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8) s.336(1) Planning – agricultural use – permaculture. Farm Law 2003, 85, 10-12 Accommodation Agricultural land Enforcement notices 2002753269 724…
15.
Caravan for agricultural worker – assessment of need and viability of the unit (Case Comment)
Citation: J.P.L. 1999, Jun, 545-553
Subject: Planning; Agriculture
Keywords: Agricultural land; Caravans; Green belt; Planning permission
Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…total wage bill, the contention was made that the unit was not viable.The Inspector concluded that there was an agricultural case on both functional and financial grounds for the retention of the mobile home. The Inspector in his own viability exercise had included, under the heading of “labour costs” only one full-time worker …
…representations made at the hearing and in writing, I consider that the main issues to be determined is whether the mobile home constitutes appropriate development in the Green Belt and, if not, whether the need for the dwelling to house an agricultural worker constitutes the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the normal presumption against development in the Green Belt.”As Mr Green, on behalf of the Council, pointed out, this is, having regard to the appropriateness of agricultural development within the Green Belt, a curious way of setting forth the issues, but I shall return to that later. Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the Inspector’s letter recorded the following: “13. The Council’s agricultural appraisal assessed the labour requirement for the arable, beef and poultry enterprises to be 2 full-time workers at most …
…which was satisfied as Mr Gregory lived on site and could provide emergency cover, if and when required. Both the mobile home and Huntswood Farmhouse, which was assumed to be part of the holding, were deemed to be superfluous. The agricultural appraisal also found, using average performance figures from Nix for output and costs, that the form had a negative net margin, which was not viable or sustainable in terms of the guidelines in PPG 7. 14. However, as your agricultural adviser pointed out at the hearing, the appraisal has a degree of inconsistency in basing the functional requirement on the …
…replacement worker without being able to offer accommodation in an area characterised by high property values. I acknowledge that the mobile home could now meet that need and thereby contribute to the efficient management of the farm. 16. On balance therefore I have concluded that there is an agricultural case, on both functional and financial grounds, for retention of the mobile home. I acknowledge that there have been changes in circumstances since the previous planning permission was granted in 1984, with the …
…by MAFF and it is also a material consideration that the Council has granted permission for residential accommodation for an agricultural worker on no less than 4 occasions since 1978 and that the mobile home has itself existed on the site for some 14 years. With an area of 74M2 the mobile home is clearly not unreasonably large in terms of criterion (c) of Policy GB6. Although the mobile home is exposed to view from the public footpath and open land to the east, it is seen as part of…
16.
South Buckinghamshire DC v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Queen’s Bench Division, 11 November 1998
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Agricultural holdings; Caravans; Planning permission
Where Reported: (1999) 78 P. & C.R. 255; [1999] J.P.L. 545; [1998] E.G. 164 (C.S.)
Documents: Case Analysis (1999) 78 P. & C.R. 255
Terms in Context:
…representations made at the hearing and in writing, I consider that the main issues to be determined is whether the mobile home constitutes appropriate development in the green belt and, if not, whether the need for the dwelling to house an agricultural worker constitutes the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the normal presumption against development in the green belt.”As Mr Green, on behalf of the Council, pointed out, this is, having regard to the appropriateness of agricultural development within the green belt, a curious way of setting forth the issues, but I shall return to that later. Paragraphs 13 to 16 of the Inspector’s letter recorded the following: “13. The Council’s agricultural appraisal assessed the labour requirement for the arable, beef and pultry enterprises to be 2 full-time workers at most …
…which was satisfied as Mr Gregory lived on site and could provide emergency cover, if and when required. Both the mobile home and Huntswood Farmhouse, which was assumed to be part of the holding, were deemed to be superfluous. The agricultural appraisal also found, using average performance figures from Nix for output and costs, that the form had a negative net margin, which was not viable or sustainable in terms of the guidelines in PPG 7. 14. However, as your agricultural adviser pointed out at the hearing, the appraisal has a degree of inconsistency in basing the functional requirement on the …
…is detached from Huntswood and who has sought more diverse sources of income in the light of problems facing the agricultural industry, has unavoidable absences from Huntswood Farm and the supervisory role undertaken by the retired farmworker until his recent departure from the mobile home cannot now cover these absences. Furthermore, since Mr Gregory’s full-time worker left his employment in April 1997, it has …
…replacement worker without being able to offer accommodation in an area characterised by high property values. I acknowledge that the mobile home could now meet that need and thereby contribute to the efficient management of the farm. 16. On balance therefore I have concluded that there is an agricultural case, on both functional and financial grounds, for retention of the mobile home. I acknowledge that there have been changes in circumstances since the previous planning permission was granted in 1984, with the …
…by MAFF and it is also a material consideration that the Council has granted permission for residential accommodation for an agricultural worker on no less than 4 occasions since 1978 and that the mobile home has itself existed on the site for some 14 years. With an area of 74m2 the mobile home is clearly not unreasonably large in terms of criterion (c) of Policy GB6. Although the mobile home is exposed to view from the public footpath and open land to the east, it is seen as part of…
17.
Maldon DC v Hammond (No.2) Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 7 July 2005
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Contempt of court; Injunctions; Mobile homes; Suspended committal orders; Variation
Where Reported: [2005] EWCA Civ 1001; Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…in the order to which I have referred. The injunction required: (1) the appellant to remove from the land any mobile home; (2) remove from the land any motor vehicle whatsoever; (3) cease to use the land for the purposes of human habitation, save as permitted by the General Permitted Development Order 1995 Permission to …
…He has said on oath in front of me that his present activities are devoted to restoring this land to agricultural use. That was his excuse to Buckley J. With a slightly different matrix he sought to persuade Buckley J that it …
…order that he could carry on his car repair business on the site in question, but it has now become agriculture. He has no training in agriculture; he has not enquired whether the land, which is frequently water-logged, is suitable for the purpose for which he wishes to use it. I disbelieve the whole idea.” On behalf of the appellant Mr Ground QC submits that the period of suspension …
…into effect. Curtis J did not deal in terms with what might happen to the physical apparatus, that is the mobile home itself. It is clear from his judgment that Curtis J regarded the appellant’s position as being one of determination to remain on the present land in the mobile home, and the manoeuvrings described by the judge were the appellant’s attempts to do that. A further long statement has recently been submitted to this court by the appellant. What he now seeks to do is to use the land as a chicken farm. The use suggested before Curtis J was a different agricultural use. The determination to remain, if possible, on the land in his mobile home is the intention of the appellant. We have considered the long further statement with a view to deciding, first, whether has been made on behalf of the council that they are under no duty to provide a site for the mobile home, either for use as a residence or otherwise, and any statutory status under which the appellant could claim relief as a gypsy is…
18.
Dwelling house – agricultural occupancy condition – mobile home erected on part of the site – bungalow built of a different size and in a different position – enforcement notices issued (Case Comment)
Citation: J.P.L. 1996, Jun, 497-510
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Change of use; Enforcement notices; Immunities; Time limits; Variation
Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…LJI00001934561217 Case Comment JPL Journal of Planning & Environment Law 1996 Jun Dwelling house – agricultural occupancy condition – mobile home erected on part of the site – bungalow built of a different size and in a different position – enforcement notices issued J.P.L. 1996, Jun, 497-510 Planning Change of use Enforcement notices Immunities Time limits Variation Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.171B R. v Secretary of State for …
…8a, Mill Road, Mayland, Essex. February 3, 1976 planning permission was granted for a house, subject, inter alia, to an agricultural occupancy condition. The land was in agricultural use. Permission was given, in the light of proven agricultural need, for the dwelling. In 1982 Mr Hammond rented the front part of the site from Mr Hunter, for which planning permission had been given for the construction of the dwelling. In 1982 he erected a mobile home for himself and his family on that part of the site. In 1984 he started to construct a bungalow, purportedly …
…the protection and preservation of the rural areas. It is considered there is no justification for the siting of the mobile home in connection with the present use of the land. (5) WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO Cease the use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home and remove any mobile home in the land. Time for compliance: 6 months after this notice takes effect.” The notice was served on Mr Hammond. On or shortly before July 23, 1992 officers of the planning authority came to the site and inspected the mobile home. Mr Hammond told them that it was occupied by his daughter and they said they would return later the same …
…which planning permission, if required, had been granted. Since the construction of the bungalow was without planning permission, the ancillary use of the mobile home was unauthorised. He [Dyson J.] did not find it necessary to decide whether Mr Masters was correct when he challenged the finding of the first Inspector, that the use of the land for stationing a mobile home was permitted development under Class XXII of Schedule 1 of the General Development Order. The relevant question was not whether the use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home during the construction of the bungalow was authorised or not, but whether it had constituted a material change of use from the earlier use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for human habitation simpliciter. If that had constituted a material change of use, then so too had the continued stationing of the mobile home after the bungalow had been completed in 1985 or 1986. In his [Dyson J.’s] view, there was a material change of use at each stage. First, it seemed to him, as a matter of common sense, that the stationing on land of …
…case the Inspector had regarded the variation as part of the labelling of the allegation. The mere stationing of a mobile home might have been consistent with the existing use of the land, namely, for agricultural purposes. It was, therefore, necessary to label the allegation properly by referring to the purpose for which the mobile home was used. The Inspector had taken the view that there was no dispute as to the facts relating to the use of the mobile home. In his [Dyson J.’s] view, the Inspector was entitled to conclude that the variation had caused no injustice to Mr…
19.
Enforcement notice – mixed use of agriculture and stationing of caravans – powers to vary (Case Comment)
Citation: J.P.L. 1991, Jun, 555-559
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Change of use; Enforcement notices; Variation
Documents: Full Text Article Legal Journals Index Abstract
Terms in Context:
…whole of the appeal site. This alleged that there had been a breach of planning control, namely a change of use of the land to the mixed uses of: (i) agriculture; (ii) stationing a mobile home for residential purposes; (iii) stationing two touring-type caravans. The notice required Mrs. Gore to cease to use the land for the stationing of the mobile home and the touring-type caravans, and to remove them from the land. On May 20, 1988, Mrs. Gore appealed to …
…most of OS 9744 by a dashed red line with the notations: “Where planning permission ought to be granted for mobile home and caravan,” and “The only land to which the Enforcement Notice is relevant.” Mrs. Gore submitted: (i) that she was seeking planning permission to retain the mobile home and the two touring-type caravans on OS 9744, and (ii) that the five acres was used only for agriculture, that there had been no development on this land, and thus that it ought not to have been included in …
…stationed anywhere on the appeal site. I take the view too that the allegation in the notice reasonably describes the use being made of the enforcement notice site as a whole at the date the notice was issued, and that that mixed use was in breach of planning control.” The Inspector then went on to consider whether it would be right to grant planning permission for the retention of the mobile home and the two caravans on OS 9744. He concluded that if no more caravans were brought on to the land …
…enforcement notice should be quashed, and to grant planning permission in respect of the whole appeal site for“the continued use of land … for a mixed use of agriculture, the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes, and the stationing of two touring-type caravans, subject to the following conditions: 1. Not more than one mobile home shall be stationed on the land for residential purposes at any time, and not more than two touring-type caravans …
…to OS 9744, he submitted, it would have been a breach of planning control for the five acres to be used for any purpose other than agriculture. Moreover, if the enforcement notice had been upheld in relation to the five acres, an attempt to use the five acres for any purpose other than agriculture would have have been a breach of the enforcement notice for which the Council J.P.L. 557 557 could prosecute. In…
20.
White v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Queen’s Bench Division, 07 December 1999
Subject: Planning
Keywords: Development; Green belt; Mobile homes
Where Reported: Official Transcript
Documents: Case Analysis Official Transcript
Terms in Context:
…WhiteSecretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions WHITE V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT …
…United Kingdom07 December 1999 Christopher Lockhart-Mummery Q.C. Lockhart-Mummery, C, QC (c)Sweet & Maxwell Limited Planning Development Green belt Mobile homes development mobile homes satisfaction of functional and financial tests development policy W applied under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.288 to quash the decision of an Inspector refusing his application for planning permission to locate a mobile home on an area of farm land located within the metropolitan Green Belt. The Inspector had found the proposal to be an inappropriate development. W, who used the site to run a free range egg farm, maintained that the home satisfied the functional and financial tests within …
…Planning Policy Guidance as to temporary planning permissions had been taken into account. W’s business had operated competently without a mobile home located on the site and furthermore his financial borrowing had, by the time of the inquiry, been substantially reduced.