26/02/2018
Appeal and costs won ( oh and national recognition in The Planner magazine)
Appeal: Green belt bungalow turns on legal definition of ‘agriculture’
Contentious plans to demolish a hay store and tack room on green belt land and replace it with a bungalow can go ahead after an inspector consulted case law in ruling that the existing buildings were not in agricultural use.
The appeal concerned two buildings described as a “hay store and tack room”, on green belt land near Mawdesley, between Liverpool and Manchester. The appellant sought permission to demolish the buildings and replace them with a bungalow.
Although new buildings are generally considered inappropriate in the green belt, national policy lists a number of exceptional circumstances in which permission can be granted, one of which is “redevelopment of previously developed (brownfield) sites”.
Previously developed land is defined in the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) as “land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, not including agricultural or forestry buildings”.
The appellant argued that the buildings have been used for equestrian purposes, as well as domestic storage for cars and a sit-on tractor. A coalition of parties including Chorley Council, Mawdesley Parish Council, and various neighbours who opposed the scheme argued that the buildings have been in agricultural use because they were used “in association with the grazing of horses”.
Because agricultural buildings are excluded from the previously developed land exception for green belt development, Inspector Katie McDonald’s decision turned on the legal definition of ‘agriculture’.
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, she noted, lists a number of activities that fall under agriculture, including the “breeding and keeping of livestock” and “the use of land as grazing land”. However, as established by the courts in 1962, ‘livestock’ only includes horses with reference to breeding and show-jumping .
“Keeping” horses, she noted, involves activities other than just putting them out to graze, and equestrian activities are related to leisure, not agriculture. On her site visit she noted that the site appeared to be in use for leisure and hobby purposes, with evidence of domestic equipment and outdoor games. Drawing together these factors, she concluded that the site had not been in agricultural use, and was therefore not inappropriate green belt development.
In a separate decision, the appellant sought an award of costs against the council. McDonald sided with the appellant, noting that he had submitted “a wealth of evidence” to suggest the land was not in agricultural use, citing “well-established case law” as to the interpretation of ‘agriculture’. On this basis she concluded that the council's position was not supported by objective analysis or evidence, and ordered a full award of costs.
The inspector’s report – case reference 3187337 – can be read online
