Guildford Borough Council v First Secretary Of State

Planning policy must be interpreted by the decision-maker. A legal error arises only where the interpretation adopted is not reasonably open on the wording and context of the policy.

Where agricultural and non-agricultural activities form one integral farm enterprise, it may be reasonable to assess the enterprise as a whole when applying policies concerning agricultural dwellings. The non-agricultural element cannot independently satisfy those policies, but its integration with the agricultural business may justify considering the whole enterprise. An artificial division of the worker’s duties is not required.

Guildford Borough Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal under section 174(2)(a), quashing an enforcement notice and granting temporary planning permission for a mobile home at High Barn Farm Buildings.

The holding comprised substantial agricultural activities and an integrated livery business. The inspector found a functional need for a full-time worker to live at or near the holding, no suitable alternative accommodation, financial viability and no compelling Green Belt or countryside objections.

The central issue was whether the inspector could take the integrated livery activities into account when applying PPG7 Annex I, Local Plan policy RE12 and Green Belt policy.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector’s decision was lawful. Guildford Borough Council was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £3,310.
2. The interpretation of planning policy is primarily for the decision-maker. Applying R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods [1997] JPL 958, the court held that no error of law arises where the policy wording is reasonably capable of more than one meaning and the decision-maker adopts a meaning which the policy can legally bear. Planning policy guidance is not to be treated as a statute.
3. The inspector correctly understood that PPG7 Annex I, Local Plan policy RE12 and PPG2 concerned agricultural uses and accommodation for agricultural workers. A livery business, viewed in isolation, was not an agricultural use and could not independently come within those provisions.
4. However, the inspector had found that the livery activities complemented the agricultural activities, were operated as an integral part of the farm holding, and formed part of a single enterprise. In those circumstances, it was reasonably open to him to examine the enterprise as a whole and apply the agricultural dwelling policies.
5. The court rejected the council’s proposed division of the business and the worker’s duties between agricultural and livery activities. That approach would produce artificial results, including potentially failing the full-time worker requirement even though the worker served one integrated farm business.
6. The 2001 policy developments supporting farm diversification reinforced the reasonableness of the inspector’s pragmatic approach. The inspector had therefore been entitled to find that the functional and other policy requirements were satisfied and that the mobile home constituted appropriate development in the Green Belt.
7. The court noted an alternative possibility: even if the policies had applied only to purely agricultural activities, the inspector might have reached the same result through a materially different reasoning process. That issue was unnecessary to decide.

First-instance judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.