Taylor & Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & Regions

On an appeal against an enforcement notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector is not generally required to invent or investigate a landowner’s fallback case. An appellant seeking a lesser requirement should identify the proposed variation and the development to be retained. A site visit is ordinarily for assessing submissions already made, not eliciting new contentious submissions.

Under Schedule 2 Part 6 Class A of the General Permitted Development Order 1995, accommodating livestock includes engineering works providing something suitable for livestock, such as feeding hardstandings. It is not confined to habitation or shelter. The 465-square-metre limit applied, and Part 9 required a recognisable pre-existing private way.

Taylor & Sons (Farms) imported waste onto an agricultural holding, creating hardstandings, deposited waste and a farm track. Enforcement notices alleged a material change of use and engineering operations without planning permission.

On written-representation appeals, an inspector dismissed the appeals, subject to varying the compliance period. Jackson J allowed the High Court appeals and remitted the matter, holding that feeding hardstandings did not accommodate livestock under Part 6 and that the inspector should consider retaining some material. The Secretary of State appealed.

The central issues were the construction of Part 6 Class A.1(d)(i), the scope of Part 9, and whether the inspector erred under section 174(2)(f) by requiring removal of all material without inviting a fallback case.

1. Outcome. The Secretary of State’s appeals were allowed. The enforcement notices stood as varied by the inspector. Costs were ordered in the sums of £6,000 below and £9,394.50 by agreement.
2. Part 6. The court, in the judgment delivered by Lord Justice Schiemann, rejected the High Court’s habitation-based interpretation of “works for accommodating livestock”. In context, “accommodating” meant providing something suitable. The separate references to buildings, structures and fences supported that construction. Hardstandings used as feeding areas therefore fell within Class A.1(d)(i), even though they were also used by livestock lorries.
3. The 465-square-metre limitation applied to the relevant engineering works. The hardstandings exceeded that limit. Independently, the inspector was entitled to conclude that the totality of the works exceeded what was reasonably necessary for agriculture within the unit.
4. Part 9. Part 9 required a recognisable private way already to exist, with boundaries within which the maintenance or improvement works were carried out. The inspector was entitled, on the limited evidence, to find that Mr Taylor had not shown that the track had been formed within the boundaries of a pre-existing private way. The High Court had erred by identifying uncertainties instead of asking whether the inspector was entitled to reach her conclusion on the evidence before her.
5. Ground (f). Under section 174(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the inspector had to consider whether the required steps exceeded what was necessary to remedy the breach or injury to amenity. An appellant relying on this ground should identify, without prejudice to the primary case, any fallback position and proposed variation. In the circumstances, the inspector was not required to invite further submissions or conduct her own inquiry.
6. A site visit was ordinarily for assessing submissions already made. It was not an appropriate forum for eliciting new contentious submissions. Although powers existed to vary the notices or grant permission for part of the development, the inspector was not shown to have erred because those powers had not been requested. The court expressly left undecided whether breach of a GPDO limitation necessarily required removal of all development.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2001] EWCA Civ 1254. The appeals were allowed, and the enforcement notices stood as varied by the inspector.
2. High Court: Jackson J allowed the appeals under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and remitted the matter to the Secretary of State.
3. Inspector: Appeals against the enforcement notices were dismissed, subject to a variation of the compliance period.