Harper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Permitted development under Class A of Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 requires development to be reasonably necessary for agriculture and the building to be designed for agricultural purposes. A deemed prior approval does not authorise development falling outside those requirements. In a planning appeal concerning an unauthorised building, the inspector is not required to determine the steps needed to remedy the breach, including whether demolition and subsequent re-erection would be wasteful. The High Court will not interfere where the inspector has properly assessed the building’s appearance, proposed use and planning impact, and has applied the correct principles.

The claimant constructed a building after the local planning authority failed to respond within the prescribed period to an application for prior approval under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The authority later concluded that the building was not designed for agricultural purposes and served an enforcement notice requiring demolition. Following an unsuccessful enforcement appeal and a prosecution, the claimant applied for permission to retain and alter the building. The authority refused permission, and an inspector dismissed his appeal on grounds including harm to the countryside, insufficient evidence of agricultural use and the availability of a lawful alternative building. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision, principally arguing that demolition would waste resources.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector’s decision could not successfully be challenged.

2. Under Class A of Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, permitted development must be reasonably necessary for agriculture within the agricultural unit. Paragraph A1(c) also excludes a building not designed for agricultural purposes. The claimant’s deemed prior approval did not remove those substantive requirements.

3. The inspector was entitled to find that the building’s design, including its openings, decorative surrounds, cavity-wall construction and damp-proof courses, was inconsistent with a modern agricultural building. She was also entitled to find insufficient evidence of agricultural activity and to have reservations about the proposed storage use.

4. The claimant’s resource-waste argument did not establish an error of principle. The prior approval enabled construction only of a building satisfying the agricultural requirements. Given the earlier decisions, demolition and re-erection in substantially the same form might itself fail those requirements.

5. It was not for the inspector, in the planning appeal, to determine the steps required to remedy an unauthorised development. The claim was therefore dismissed.