Messrs RW Ramsey & JP Ramsey v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor

Under Part 4 Class B of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the critical matters are the duration of the proposed use and whether the land reverts to its normal use between occasions. A use lasting no more than 28 days in a calendar year remains temporary even if repeated annually.

Physical alterations may be relevant where they make realistic reversion to the normal use difficult or impossible. Their effect on the land’s appearance or character does not create an additional criterion. Where lawful alterations permit the normal use to continue for most of the year, they do not prevent reliance on Class B.

The appellants owned agricultural land containing lawful banks, depressions and jumps created for vehicular sport. They sought a lawful development certificate for using the land for vehicular sports and leisure activities for no more than 28 days in each calendar year. The local planning authority refused the application. The Secretary of State’s inspector dismissed the ensuing appeal because the physical features made the proposed use permanent, although intermittent.

Scott Baker J dismissed a further appeal, holding that the character of the proposed use and the land’s physical features could be considered alongside its duration. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether those physical features took the proposed use outside Part 4 Class B of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Keene LJ delivered the leading judgment. Robert Walker LJ agreed and added a short qualification; Aldous LJ agreed with both judgments. The inspector applied the wrong legal test by treating the land’s appearance and the existence of physical features created for vehicular sport as establishing a permanent intermittent use.

2. Class B is expressed by reference to the maximum duration of the temporary use. The critical matters are whether the activity occurs on no more than 28 days in a calendar year and whether the land reverts between those occasions to its normal use. A permitted temporary use remains exceptional rather than normal even when exercised for the maximum number of days and repeated annually.

3. A dual or mixed normal use may arise where each recurrent activity accounts for a substantial part of the activity on the land. A single permanent but intermittent use may also exist where the land has ceased to have another use between occasions. Those situations differ from land which continues in its normal use for most of the year and is used temporarily for another purpose.

4. Physical operations may be relevant if they make realistic reversion to the previous normal use difficult or impossible. In that event, the previous use may effectively have ceased and the new use may constitute a permanent change of use. Otherwise, the physical appearance or character of the land supplies no additional criterion under Class B. Operational development is separately controlled under planning legislation.

5. The lawful physical features on this land did not prevent grazing between events. The proposed use, limited to 28 days annually with reversion to agriculture after each occasion, therefore fell within the deemed permission. Robert Walker LJ emphasised that reversion is a question of fact: a circuit prepared or used so intensively that it became incapable of agricultural use could fall outside Class B.

6. The order of Scott Baker J was set aside and the inspector’s decision was quashed. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed unanimously. The High Court order was set aside and the inspector’s decision was quashed: [2002] EWCA Civ 118.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Scott Baker J dismissed the statutory appeal. No citation is stated in the judgment.
3. Secretary of State: An appointed inspector dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the refusal of a lawful development certificate.
4. Local planning authority: Suffolk Coastal District Council refused the application for a lawful development certificate.