Belmont Riding Centre v First Secretary of State & Anor

A mixed use extending across a planning unit does not fall within a use class merely because one of its components would do so. The relevant use for applying the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the mixed use as a whole. Replacing one component with another may therefore constitute development, subject to materiality.

An applicant for a lawful development certificate bears the burden of providing sufficient detail and information to establish the proposed use’s lawfulness. An inspector is required to determine the case advanced, but need not consider an unraised alternative planning case. Restrictions on public access cannot independently exclude a use from Class D2, although they may be relevant to identifying the character of the existing use.

Belmont applied under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a lawful development certificate for the proposed conversion of a riding centre into a health and fitness club. The proposed club included a swimming pool, gym, dance studio and ancillary facilities, all said to fall within Class D2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

After the local planning authority failed to determine the application, the Secretary of State’s inspector dismissed Belmont’s appeal under section 195. The inspector found that the former riding centre use had ceased or, alternatively, formed part of a wider mixed use across the planning unit. Belmont challenged the decision under section 288, alleging irrationality and failure to consider whether the proposed change would be material.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector was entitled to find that the former commercial riding centre use was no longer the existing use of the application site. The earlier evidence concerned a mixed use across the wider planning unit and did not establish a specific continuing riding centre use on the application area. The inspector had regard to the earlier report, recognised the limitations of his site visit and was entitled to place weight on what he observed.
2. The inspector’s assessment that stabling was the principal use of the riding centre building was rationally open to him. Riding holidays or teaching might still occur, but they were secondary and did not necessarily have the character of the former commercial riding centre use. The reference to restricted public access was relevant to that factual assessment. It could not, however, operate as an independent rule excluding restricted-access activities from Class D2.
3. Alternatively, the existing use was a mixed residential, equestrian and agricultural use across the whole planning unit. Such a mixed use did not fall within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and could not benefit from the exception in section 55(2)(f) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The focus had to be on the mixed use as a whole, not on an individual component falling within Class D2. Replacing a component therefore involved a change in the mixed use and, subject to materiality, development.
4. The inspector was not required to consider a general planning judgment on material change after rejecting the Class D2 case. The application was advanced squarely on that basis, and the burden under section 192 required the applicant to provide the necessary detail and supporting material. In any event, the proposed health and fitness club would plainly have amounted to a material change from the existing mixed use.

This was a first-instance judicial review challenge to the Secretary of State’s inspector’s decision dated 26 February 2003. The challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed.