Singhal UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government

Permission for statutory review of a planning inspector’s decision should be refused where the evidence discloses no arguable error of law. Under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, the relevant site must have been used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit at the specified date. The agricultural use must relate to a trade or business. Whether that requirement is met is a fact-and-degree question requiring reliable evidence identifying the relevant business and connecting it with the agricultural activities. Sparse statutory declarations, photographs showing only snapshots, and unsupported assertions of income may be insufficient. A late and unsupported allegation of bias will not justify permission where the underlying challenge is incapable of succeeding.

Singhal UK Limited sought permission to apply for statutory review of a planning inspector’s decision concerning Appeal C, one of three appeals determined in a decision letter dated 1 October 2018. The appeal concerned the refusal of approval under Class Q of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for conversion of an agricultural building into a dwelling.

A Deputy Judge had refused permission, including on the ground that the company might not be an aggrieved person with standing. The renewed application challenged the inspector’s assessment of agricultural use, alleged bias, and the treatment of evidence concerning the position on 20 March 2013.

1. Permission refused. The court declined to rest its decision on standing, although it expressed very considerable doubt that the company could establish that it was an aggrieved person. Participation in the planning appeal by the company’s director and shareholder did not itself confer standing. The late option agreement did not satisfactorily demonstrate a sufficient interest in the land.
2. Class Q required the site to have been used solely for agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on 20 March 2013. The relevant agricultural use had to be referable to a trade or business. The court was inclined to accept that the phrase referred to an agricultural trade or business, although it was unnecessary finally to decide that construction.
3. Whether agricultural activity was conducted for the purposes of a trade or business was a fact-and-degree question, heavily dependent on the quality of the evidence. The evidence did not identify the relevant business, the unit to which it related, or material supporting the assertion that income had been generated from haymaking. The inspector was entitled to find that the land was not in agricultural use for a trade or business at the critical date.
4. The inspector was also entitled to treat the keeping of classic tractors as non-agricultural activity. Photographs were merely snapshots and did not establish the nature or continuity of a trade or business.
5. The allegation of bias was made late and supported by declarations whose delay and circumstances were unexplained. The inspector denied the allegation. In any event, the central evidential deficiency meant that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached a conclusion favourable to the claimant under Class Q. The application therefore failed.

The judgment records that a Deputy Judge, Mr John Howell QC, had previously refused permission for the statutory review application. The renewed application was refused by the High Court (Administrative Court).