Alderson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

On an appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court reviews the legality of an inspector’s decision, not the planning merits. An inspector’s decision must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal important controversial issues, but need not address every argument or material consideration. Findings based on evidence and site inspection are matters of planning judgment unless legally irrational. On a ground (f) appeal, the court asks whether the enforcement steps exceed what is necessary to remedy the identified breach or resulting injury to amenity. Where the notice alleges a mixed agricultural and residential use, the decision-maker cannot grant permission for a different, purely agricultural use. The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an inspector’s dismissal of appeals concerning two enforcement notices issued by Wealden District Council.

The first notice alleged a change from agricultural use to a mixed use involving the stationing of a caravan for residential purposes. The second alleged the erection of freestanding timber decking around the caravan. The inspector dismissed appeals under grounds (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g), where applicable, and refused planning permission.

Permission for the statutory appeal was limited to whether removal of the caravan and decking was necessary to remedy the breaches. The central issue was whether the inspector had erred in law in requiring those steps.

1. The appeal was limited to ground (f). The appellant could not use the amended grounds to reopen the factual and planning-merits conclusions reached under grounds (a), (b) and (c).

2. The inspector’s decision was to be read fairly and as a whole. Her conclusions that the caravan was used mainly or solely for residential accommodation, and that there was no cogent evidence of an agricultural residential need, were findings open to her on the evidence and site visit. They involved planning judgment and disclosed no error of law.

3. The absence of a ground (f) appeal concerning the first notice was material. The inspector was not required to decide whether removal of the caravan exceeded what was necessary. In any event, the notice alleged a mixed agricultural and residential use. Permission could not properly be granted for retention of the caravan solely for agricultural purposes, because that was not the alleged breach requiring planning permission.

4. As to the decking, there was a ground (f) appeal. The inspector was entitled to find that the suggested reduced decking was insufficiently clear and precise to alter the notice. She was also entitled to conclude that, once the caravan was removed, the decking served no remaining purpose. Removal therefore did not exceed what was necessary to remedy the breach.

5. The inspector was required to consider what was necessary to remedy the breach, not lesser steps directed only to injury to amenity, because the notice proceeded on the former basis. There was no error of law in her approach. Both section 289 appeals were dismissed, and counsel were invited to draw up the appropriate order.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The inspector’s dismissal of the appeals against both enforcement notices was upheld. The section 289 appeals were dismissed.