Avon Estates Ltd v The Welsh Ministers & Anor

In determining the planning unit for a certificate of lawful use, an inspector may treat apparently separate buildings as part of a single holiday-village or composite planning use where their functional and physical relationships justify that conclusion. The inspector need not certify an alternative planning unit which the evidence does not define with sufficient precision. A certificate under section 191(4) of the 1990 Act cannot properly describe a lawful use by reference to an incompletely identified larger unit. On a rehearing after an earlier decision has been quashed, the decision-maker may reach a different conclusion, provided adequate reasons are given. A view on seasonal use which is unnecessary to the refusal of the certificate is obiter and does not bind a later application.

Avon Estates operated Gilfach Holiday Village, comprising 42 holiday bungalows and ancillary facilities. It sought a certificate of existing lawful use for use of the bungalows as 42 dwelling houses and a certificate of proposed lawful use for one test unit. An inspector rejected both applications, concluding that the bungalows formed part of a larger planning unit used as a holiday village, but that the complete extent of that unit could not be identified sufficiently to certify it.

The claimant challenged the inspector’s decision on grounds including error of law, irrationality and inadequate reasons. The issue was whether the inspector was entitled to reject the proposed C3 planning units without certifying the alternative holiday-village unit.

1. Appeal dismissed. The inspector had correctly addressed the principles in Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 1 WLR 1207, which recognised different approaches to identifying a planning unit, including the whole unit of occupation, composite use and separate individual units.
2. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the bungalows were not independent C3 planning units. Their relationship with the other facilities justified treating the village as a single planning unit or composite use. The claimant had not shown irrationality, irrelevant considerations or inadequate reasoning.
3. The second inspector was deciding the matter afresh after the earlier decision had been quashed. Consistently with Vallis v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anr [2012] EWHC 578 (Admin), a different conclusion was permissible, provided reasons were given. The inspector had plainly addressed the earlier decision and explained his own conclusion.
4. Under section 191(4) of the 1990 Act, a certificate could be granted in modified terms only where the lawful development was established and sufficiently described. The evidence did not identify the full extent of the holiday village. An incomplete certificate referring to an undefined larger site would therefore be improper.
5. The inspector’s observation concerning seasonal holiday accommodation was unnecessary to the refusal of the certificates. It was obiter and would not bind a future application or inspector.

The claimant was ordered to pay the Welsh Ministers’ costs of £7,134 within 14 days. Permission to appeal was refused.

The claim challenged an inspector’s decision dated 21 August 2012 refusing certificates of lawful use. The judgment also records that an earlier inspector’s decision had been upheld by Beatson J and subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal. The present appeal against the second inspector’s decision was dismissed.