Stafford Borough Council, R (On the Application of) v McCluskey

In assessing whether land is incapable of reasonably beneficial use for purchase-notice purposes, the decision-maker must consider realistic uses supported by the evidence. Use with neighbouring land may be considered where the statutory and factual conditions identified in Circular 13/83 are met. The assessment concerns reality rather than abstract possibility. A decision-maker need not address a case which was not advanced at the inquiry, particularly where the necessary factual evidence was absent. Reasons need address the principal important controversial issues, but need not deal with every material consideration or unargued point.

Stafford Borough Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Secretary of State’s decision confirming a purchase notice served by John and Susan McCluskey. Planning permission for a dwelling and driveway had been refused, and the Secretary of State accepted the Inspector’s conclusion that the site was incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state.

The Council argued that the Inspector had failed to consider whether the site could be used with adjoining land for grazing, forestry, storage, hardstanding or informal recreation, and had failed to give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether the Inspector had lawfully assessed realistic beneficial uses of the site, including possible use with neighbouring land.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Secretary of State was entitled to confirm the purchase notice under sections 137 and 141 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The question of reasonably beneficial use required a fact-sensitive assessment. The Inspector properly considered the site’s condition, size, shape, surroundings, local land uses, evidence of demand, and the cost of clearance compared with the likely return. The evidence justified the conclusion that grazing, forestry and related agricultural uses were not reasonably beneficial.
3. Use with adjoining land could be relevant under paragraph 13 of Circular 13/83, but the possibility had to be realistic. The Council had not advanced evidence that, if clearance were required, the site would become beneficial when used with other agricultural land. The Inspector was therefore not required to address that unargued alternative.
4. The same reasoning applied to the hardstanding and forestry arguments. The hardstanding was outside the purchase-notice site and had only been proposed in conjunction with uses which had already been rejected. The forestry argument was unsupported by evidence of practicability, viability or demand.
5. The Inspector was entitled to reject informal recreation as a realistic beneficial use. The only serious expression of interest extended to all the owners’ land, whereas the owners were not proposing to sell the adjoining land and were under no obligation to do so. The proposal was therefore an abstract possibility rather than a realistic use of the notice site.
6. The reasons were adequate. The Inspector addressed the principal controversial issues and explained why the relevant evidence did not establish reasonably beneficial use. The claimant was ordered to pay the First Defendant’s costs assessed at £7,405. No second set of costs was awarded to the Second Defendants because separate representation was not necessary.

First-instance judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claim challenging the Secretary of State’s decision was dismissed.