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

Planning policies directed to new buildings do not ordinarily govern the residential conversion of an existing rural building. A policy concerning buildings provided in association with camping or caravanning was therefore confined to new buildings and did not require express consideration in determining whether an existing barn could be occupied residentially. Similarly, national policy requiring special justification for isolated new houses in the countryside applied to new houses, not conversions of existing buildings. The relevant policy framework for a conversion was the policy dealing expressly with the re-use of rural buildings. An inspector is required to address the principal important controversial issues, not every policy mentioned in representations.

Ryedale District Council brought statutory challenges under sections 288(1) and 289(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against an enforcement notice. The notice concerned the permanent residential occupation of a converted rural barn, originally permitted for holiday letting. The inspector substituted a condition permitting occupation by the owners of an adjacent caravan site while that site operated.

The Council alleged that the inspector failed to consider local plan policy TM5, misunderstood the statutory control of the caravan facilities, and misapplied paragraph 10 and Annex A of PPS7. The central issues were whether those provisions governed the conversion of the existing barn and whether the inspector’s reasons were legally sufficient.

1. The challenges failed. The inspector lawfully quashed the enforcement notice and substituted a condition permitting residential occupation by the caravan-site owners for so long as the site continued to operate. The Council was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £6,844.

2. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, supplementing section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the appeal had to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The inspector was entitled to depart from policy AG6 if the facts justified doing so.

3. Policy TM5 of the Ryedale Local Plan concerned buildings to be provided in association with camping, caravanning or chalet development. Read with its criteria and supporting text, including references to new buildings, new dwellings and demountable accommodation, it was confined to new buildings. It did not govern the conversion of an existing barn. In any event, TM5 was not a principal important controversial issue: the Council’s own appeal response had described its relevance as doubtful.

4. The inspector had not misunderstood the caravan-site control regime. He expressly found that on-site accommodation was not essential to the operation of the facilities and recognised that supervision rested with the Caravan and Camping Club under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. His conclusion rested on the beneficial effects of the owners’ presence, not on an operational necessity.

5. Paragraph 10 and Annex A of PPS7 concerned isolated new houses and new residential development. They did not impose a special-justification or essential-worker test on the conversion of an existing building. Paragraphs 17 and 18, concerning the re-use of existing buildings in the countryside, provided the relevant context. The Council’s challenge on the policy ground therefore proceeded on a false premise.

Permission to appeal was refused. The Council would have to show both that the interpretation adopted was wrong and that it was incapable of being borne by the wording; there was no realistic prospect of doing so.

The judgment concerned statutory challenges to an inspector’s decision dated 7 September 2009. Both challenges failed. Permission to appeal was refused.