Brecon Beacons National Park Authority v National Assembly for Wales

For farm diversification purposes, whether a development is subsidiary to a farm enterprise depends on the evidence and the policy issues raised at the inquiry. An inspector must address the critical factors relied upon by the parties, but need not give separate reasons for every possible consideration. Where the principal issues are the source of inputs and the destination of outputs, those matters may provide an adequate basis for assessing subsidiarity. Conditions may validly secure the continuing relationship between the development and the farm. A decision is not legally inadequate merely because the inspector does not separately discuss other factors, such as capital cost or income, where they were not central to the evidence or submissions and the essential issues were addressed.

The claimant planning authority refused permission for an anaerobic digester at Great Porthamel Farm. The Inspector allowed the interested parties’ planning appeal, subject to conditions requiring the plant to remain under the farm’s ownership and operation, requiring at least 50 per cent of its feedstock to come from the farm, and restricting the spreading of digestate to land managed by the farm.

The authority challenged the decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1980. It alleged that the Inspector had failed to give legally adequate reasons on whether the plant was subsidiary to the farm enterprise and had ignored material considerations, including the plant’s cost, electricity generation, income and feedstock requirements.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Inspector’s decision was sufficiently reasoned for an informed reader who had attended the inquiry.
2. The central issue under the farm diversification policies was whether the anaerobic digester was subsidiary to the farming enterprise or was in substance a stand-alone waste disposal or power-generation facility located on agricultural land. The Inspector identified that issue and addressed it in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the decision letter.
3. The Inspector was entitled to rely on the criteria advanced in the claimant’s evidence. Those criteria concerned the proportion of feedstock arising from the farm, the spreading of all digestate on land farmed or managed by the business, and ownership and operation of the plant by the farm business. The conditions secured those matters and therefore provided an enforceable basis for the conclusion that the development was subsidiary.
4. The Inspector also dealt with the two principal practical issues concerning outputs and inputs. He found that sufficient land was available for spreading the digestate, and condition 4C restricted the digestate to land farmed and managed by the business. The input issue was addressed by the requirement that at least 50 per cent of feedstock should come from the farm.
5. An inspector is not required to scrutinise counsel’s submissions as if they were statutory text or to comment separately on every factor which might theoretically be relevant. The cost of the plant, electricity generation and income might be relevant in some cases, but they were not central to the evidence or closing submissions here. They were not ignored in a legally material sense. The decision letter also referred to the cost, maize requirement and electricity generation as aspects of the wider assessment.
6. The Inspector was entitled to determine the case on the evidence as it had developed during the inquiry. The claimant had not shown that the decision was legally defective. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £14,500.

The Inspector allowed the planning appeal concerning the proposed anaerobic digester, subject to conditions. The High Court dismissed the planning authority’s statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1980.