JR Cussons & Son v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Where an agricultural need for an additional worker is accepted, the decision-maker must address separately whether that worker needs to be accommodated on or near the holding. The mere existence of alternative accommodation is insufficient. Its practical availability and suitability must be examined, including the effect on existing occupants, the feasibility of sharing or adaptation, any need for planning permission, and whether temporary accommodation would meet the operational need. The reasoning must engage with relevant evidence, including changes in the enterprise and the health or availability of existing workers. A decision will be unlawful for inadequate reasons if it proposes alternatives without resolving these matters. A separate planning objection does not necessarily make the error immaterial where a lawful assessment might affect the form or location of the accommodation.

The applicant sought judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of an inspector’s decision dated 23 August 2007. The inspector had dismissed an appeal against refusal of planning permission to change an existing office, washroom and store at Howdale Farm into accommodation for an additional agricultural worker.

The inspector accepted that additional labour might be required, but considered that the applicant had not shown an essential need for the worker to live on the holding. He suggested accommodation at Bridge Farm, temporary use of the appeal premises, or occupation of a vacant farmhouse at Howdale Farm. The central issue was whether those alternatives had been adequately investigated and reasoned.

1. Application allowed. The inspector’s decision was quashed for inadequate reasons.
2. The inspector had accepted, contrary to the local planning authority’s case, that an additional agricultural worker might be needed. He therefore had to address whether that worker needed to be accommodated at or near Howdale Farm. That issue could not be avoided by referring generally to alternative accommodation.
3. The suggestion that the existing house at Bridge Farm could accommodate an additional worker suffered from the deficiencies identified in Keen v Secretary of State for the Environment [1996] 2 PLR 8. The decision-maker had to examine whether the accommodation was practically available and suitable. Relevant matters included the effect on the applicant’s family, the operation of shared facilities, the worker’s circumstances, and whether conversion of one dwelling into two would require planning permission.
4. The proposal for temporary accommodation in the appeal building also required proper analysis. The decision letter did not explain how temporary occupation would operate in practice or whether it would meet the livestock-supervision requirement during the relevant calving and lambing periods.
5. The possibility of using the vacant Howdale farmhouse required investigation. Its vacancy did not establish practical availability, particularly where the relationship with the owner might prevent a letting or sale.
6. The inspector was not required to accept the applicant’s evidence about his health. He was, however, required to make clear findings on that evidence and to explain how the animals could be effectively supervised if the existing worker could no longer attend from Bridge Farm.
7. The separate landscape objection did not make the challenge academic. If an essential residential need were established, the inspector would have to consider whether using the existing building would cause less harm than new accommodation.
8. The first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs, summarily assessed at £7,829.50 less VAT, unless the applicant was not VAT registered.

The application challenged an inspector’s decision dated 23 August 2007, following a planning appeal against the refusal of permission by the North York Moors National Park Authority. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the inspector’s decision.