Harrogate Borough Council v Crossland & Anor

Permitted development under Schedule 2 Part 6 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 requires the particular building to be reasonably necessary for agriculture within the unit. A building is not permitted merely because some agricultural building would be useful. Where an application is accompanied by an incorrect fee, the local planning authority may, consistently with the statutory scheme, treat it as valid subject to payment of the balance and proceed with the prior-approval process. A notice requiring prior approval, and a later refusal of approval, may prevent deemed permission arising. An injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may take account of planning history, breach of an enforcement notice, deliberate manipulation of the process, continuing works and hardship caused by the defendant’s own conduct.

Harrogate Borough Council, the local planning authority, sought an injunction requiring the demolition of a partially constructed agricultural barn owned by Geoffrey and Anne Crossland. The defendants had made repeated unsuccessful applications for substantially the same building.

The dispute concerned a fifth application under Schedule 2 Part 6 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The defendants initially paid £45 instead of the required £50. The authority notified them that prior approval was required, then received the missing £5 with a near-identical further letter. The central issues were whether the barn was reasonably necessary for agriculture, whether permission arose by default after 28 days, whether an existing enforcement notice remained effective, and whether an injunction should be granted.

1. No permitted development. The defendants bore the burden of showing that this particular barn was reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes within the unit. Applying Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment and Belmont Farm Limited v Minister of Housing and Local Government, the court held that the inquiry concerned the building’s actual design, size and layout. The barn was too large, unsuitable for farm machinery, inadequately ventilated and not fit for the proposed agricultural uses. The application therefore fell outside Class A from the outset.
2. No deemed permission. The application was subject to the procedural requirements of Class A. The authority’s letter of 17 December 2007 validly notified the defendants that prior approval was required. Even if the initial underpayment made the application invalid until the balance was paid, the authority had discretion to treat it as valid subject to later payment and had in fact acted on that basis. The letter was therefore neither irrelevant nor invalid.
3. In any event, the authority’s formal decision of 14 January 2008, refusing prior approval after consultation, was both a notification that prior approval was required and a refusal of approval. It was given within the relevant period and prevented permission arising by default. Murrell v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was distinguished because it concerned a valid application mistakenly treated as invalid. Infocus Public Networks Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government supported treating payment of the fee as a matter for the authority.
4. Injunction. The court granted an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requiring immediate demolition. Applying South Bucks District Council v Porter, the court considered the planning history without reassessing planning judgments. Relevant factors included repeated refusals, breach or potential breach of the enforcement notice, abuse of the planning process, the absence of reasonable necessity, continued construction after warning and the wider need to uphold the planning system. Wasted expenditure and hardship did not outweigh those matters because the defendants had incurred the expenditure at their own risk.
5. Alternatively, even if permission had arisen, the barn as built differed materially from the submitted details and the five-year period for carrying out the development was about to expire. Demolition was therefore ordered in any event.