Peartree Well Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

In a planning challenge, the court may intervene only for an error of law. An inspector’s assessment of planning harm and other matters of planning judgment is ordinarily for the inspector, particularly where the inspector has inspected the site.

Policy criteria for a rural dwelling, including functional need and financial viability, must be applied. A claimant cannot succeed merely by showing that parts of an inspector’s reasoning were unsatisfactory if those errors could not have affected the outcome. A planning permission subject to an unmet pre-condition is not commenced for the purposes of preserving the permission. Conditions attached to a temporary permission may be imposed without prior discussion where they are lawful, although procedural fairness generally favours raising them with the parties.

Peartree Well Ltd challenged two planning decisions concerning land at Paygate Farm. The first claim, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, concerned refusal of permission for a dwelling to support a mineral-water extraction and bottling business. The second, under section 289, concerned dismissal of an enforcement appeal relating to a caravan or mobile home on the site.

The dwelling appeal inspector rejected the application principally on functional and financial grounds and found harm to the rural character of the area. The enforcement appeal inspector found residential use, concluded that the earlier permission had lapsed because a pre-condition had not been satisfied, and granted temporary permission for a mobile home subject to conditions. The central issues were whether either decision involved an error of law and whether the enforcement appeal disclosed an arguable statutory ground.

1. The section 288 claim was dismissed and permission to bring the section 289 claim was refused. The court found no error of law in either inspector’s decision.

2. The policy criteria for a dwelling in the countryside required consideration of functional need and financial viability. The water-extraction enterprise could properly be treated, for this purpose, in the same way as an agricultural enterprise. The functional test asked whether a worker needed to be readily available at most times, including to deal quickly with emergencies. The financial test required the enterprise to have been established for at least three years, to have been profitable for at least one year, to be currently financially sound and to have a clear prospect of remaining so.

3. The dwelling inspector’s reasoning about pump failures and the sale of the former cottage was unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, the inspector was entitled on the evidence to find that the financial test was not met. The errors therefore could not have resulted in a different decision. The inspector’s assessment of visual harm was a matter of planning judgment, particularly as he had seen the site, and was not open to challenge merely because the claimant disagreed with it.

4. Under section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the enforcement grounds were correctly rejected. The mobile home was used for residential purposes, even though it also served office and business functions. The earlier permission had not been commenced because the required details of external surfaces had not been submitted and approved before works began. The failure to comply with the parking condition did not establish a different result.

5. The enforcement inspector was entitled to grant temporary permission for three years and to impose conditions concerning occupation, access, parking, lighting and removal of the existing caravan. It was generally desirable to raise previously unmentioned conditions with the parties, but the absence of prior discussion did not invalidate conditions lawfully imposed. The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £7,000.

The judgment describes earlier inspector decisions and the two challenged planning appeals, but no prior court judgment or appellate citation is stated.