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

Residential re-use of an existing building in the Green Belt is not automatically inappropriate development. The decision-maker must apply the proviso in paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework: the development must preserve openness and must not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Those purposes include preventing urban sprawl. A proposal may conflict with that purpose because a domestic use extends domestication into land previously ancillary to domestic purposes, including through likely domestic paraphernalia. The decision-maker need not identify a particular built-up area. Whether the proviso is satisfied is a matter of planning judgment, provided the reasoning is intelligible and addresses the principal controversial issues.

The claimant brought a statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to an inspector’s dismissal of his appeal under section 78 against refusal of permission. The proposal involved converting an existing barn in the Metropolitan Green Belt into a single dwelling.

The claimant argued that the inspector had given inadequate reasons, had treated residential re-use as inherently inappropriate, and had considered irrelevant matters concerning previous domestic use and ownership. The central issues were the proper application of paragraph 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the lawfulness of the inspector’s reasoning.

1. The claim was dismissed. None of the three grounds of challenge was established.
2. The inspector’s reasons were intelligible and adequate. Reading the decision letter as a whole, she explained that the proposal would insert a new domestic use into a building previously used for storage and as a workshop. It would extend domestication into land formerly ancillary to domestic purposes. Garden furniture, washing lines, children’s play equipment and similar domestic paraphernalia could also appear around the dwelling.
3. Paragraph 90 contained two distinct requirements. The development had to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and had not to conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The latter requirement required consideration of paragraphs 79 and 80, including the purpose of preventing urban sprawl. The inspector was therefore entitled to focus on that purpose before separately considering openness.
4. The inspector did not decide that residential re-use of an existing building was necessarily inappropriate. She accepted that the barn was of permanent and substantial construction and fell within the fourth bullet point of paragraph 90. She then made the required planning judgment that this particular proposal conflicted with the fundamental aim of preventing urban sprawl. A particular built-up area did not need to be identified, and the fact that the proposal concerned only one dwelling did not remove the Green Belt policy from consideration.
5. The inspector also properly assessed openness. Although there would be no increase in the building’s volume, domestic paraphernalia and related activity would cause limited harm. The proposal therefore involved inappropriate development and additional limited harm, while its benefits were given only limited weight. The very special circumstances required by paragraphs 87 and 88 were absent.
6. Previous guidance in PPG2 could be consulted if it assisted with interpretation, but the meaning of paragraph 90 was clear and PPG2 added nothing. Matters concerning the boundary and separate ownership were relevant to the extent of the curtilage and to the issue of extending domestication.

This was a first-instance statutory challenge. The judgment records that Collins J granted permission on 15 May 2017. The claim was then dismissed by the High Court (Administrative Court).