Shortt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

In an agricultural occupancy condition, “dependants” is not confined to persons financially supported from the agricultural worker’s earnings. The word must be interpreted in the context and wording of the particular condition. Where the condition expressly includes a widow or widower and contains no financial qualification, it can include a spouse and children living as a family with the qualifying worker, even if the worker’s agricultural business makes no profit or contributes nothing to family finances. Guidance requiring scrutiny of the economic viability of an agricultural dwelling does not create a continuing profitability requirement where the condition is tied only to agricultural or forestry employment and dependants.

The appellants occupied a dwelling subject to a 1975 agricultural occupancy condition with their two children. Mrs Shortt worked in agriculture, but the farming business operated at a substantial loss and Mr Shortt provided the family’s financial support. Tewkesbury Borough Council failed to determine an application for a certificate of lawful use. An inspector dismissed the resulting appeal, and Hickinbottom J dismissed the appellants’ challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2014] EWHC 2480 (Admin). The central issue was whether Mr Shortt and the children were “dependants” despite the absence of financial support from Mrs Shortt’s agricultural work.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the construction adopted by Hickinbottom J and the inspector.

1. Effect of Fawcett Properties. The observations of Lord Keith in Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council [1961] AC 636 were not intended as a definitive interpretation of “dependants”. They were not endorsed by the other members of the Appellate Committee and were not binding, particularly where the present condition was differently worded. Lord Denning’s emphasis on a worker living with a wife and family was noted, but the decision provided little assistance on the precise meaning required here.
2. Ordinary meaning and context. “Dependants” is capable of describing non-financial as well as financial dependency. Within a family home, spouses may depend on each other and children may depend on both parents through care, support and family life, irrespective of their respective financial contributions.
3. Wording of the condition. The express inclusion of a widow or widower demonstrated that a family relationship was contemplated. The absence of words requiring financial dependency supported a wider construction. It would be artificial to permit a spouse to occupy after the agricultural worker’s death but prohibit occupation during the worker’s life merely because the spouse was not financially dependent.
4. Policy and application. Guidance concerning the economic viability of agricultural enterprises did not insert a continuing profitability requirement into this condition. The condition was not tied to a particular agricultural business or its profits. Since Mrs Shortt qualified as a person employed mainly and locally in agriculture despite the farm’s losses, the argument that the family’s dependency had to arise from agricultural income failed. The inspector’s decision was therefore lawful.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. Richards LJ gave the judgment, with which Sales LJ and Bodey J agreed.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Planning Court: Hickinbottom J dismissed the challenge to the inspector’s decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2014] EWHC 2480 (Admin).
• Secretary of State’s inspector: The appeal against the local planning authority’s failure to determine the application was dismissed, and occupation by the appellants was held not to breach the condition.