Hildreths China & Glass Ltd, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

An inspector’s decision must be read fairly and as a whole. The court asks whether it leaves genuine doubt about what was decided and why, rather than requiring a legally sophisticated or formulaic account of every submission. In Green Belt cases, whether a material change of use maintains openness and avoids conflict with Green Belt purposes is principally a matter of planning judgment. A conclusion that development is inappropriate may implicitly dispose of an argument that the same features constitute very special circumstances where those features merely reduce the perceived harm. An enforcement notice cannot lawfully remove statutory rights to use land for activities outside the definition of development, including horticulture under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The claimant operated a garden centre under planning permission which defined its permitted boundaries. It used two adjoining parcels of agricultural land for storage and display of goods. The local planning authority issued an enforcement notice alleging an unlawful mixed use and requiring cessation, removal of materials and restoration of the boundary.

An inspector dismissed the claimant’s appeal under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, upheld the notice with variations, and found the use inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The claimant brought this statutory appeal under section 289, alleging inadequate consideration of its arguments, an irrelevant landscape finding, and defective wording of the notice.

1. Appeal dismissed. The inspector had identified the relevant Green Belt issues and had considered the substance of the claimant’s arguments concerning existing hardstanding, fencing and possible planning conditions. The decision letter, read straightforwardly and in context, left no genuine doubt as to what the inspector had decided or why. The court applied the approach in Dyason v Secretary of State for Environment [1998] 2 PLR 54.
2. Whether the proposed change of use maintained openness and avoided conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt was a matter of planning judgment. The inspector was entitled to find that paving the land, enclosing it and using it for retail storage had eroded openness and amounted to inappropriate development. The court would not substitute its own planning judgment.
3. The inspector’s mistaken statement that no claim had been made concerning very special circumstances did not require remittal. The factors relied upon were the same factors already considered in assessing erosion of openness. They were advanced only to show that the erosion was less significant, not as independent countervailing considerations. The inspector’s conclusion was therefore inconsistent with those factors constituting very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the Green Belt harm.
4. The landscape observation concerning materials elsewhere on the enforcement-notice land did not affect the Green Belt analysis and furnished no ground of appeal.
5. The notice did not unlawfully prohibit horticultural use. Section 55(2)(e) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 excludes agriculture, including horticulture, from development requiring planning permission. The notice prohibited use only where it was in connection with the occupation of the garden centre. Statutory rights attaching generally to land did not need express protection in the notice. The cases of Duguid v Secretary of State for Environment [2001] 82 P&CR 52, Mansi v Elstree DC [1964] 16 P&CR 153 and Kinnersley Engineering Limited v Secretary of State for Environment [2001] JPL 1082 were explained and distinguished.
6. The court declined to entertain a new and potentially broad argument about ancillary lawful uses because it had not been raised before the inspector. The appeal was dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay costs of £5,781.

The judgment describes a statutory appeal to the Administrative Court under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 from an inspector’s decision under section 174. The inspector had dismissed the planning appeal and upheld the enforcement notice, subject to variations in the compliance period and removal requirements.