You are here: Home Page > Judge rules in Ryedale Challenge to Planning Inspector’s decision on Cherry Tree Barn Case
Judge rules in Ryedale Challenge to Planning
Inspector’s decision on Cherry Tree Barn Case
In the Royal Courts of Justice in London on
Monday, 28 June 2010 Mr Justice Stadlen delivered judgement against
Ryedale District Council on the Council’s challenge to the Planning
Inspector’s decision in the Cherry Tree Barn case.
Mr Justice Stadlen found that the Planning
Inspector had not erred in law in making his decision and had
correctly considered both local development plan policy and
national planning policy. Accordingly there were no grounds
to challenge the decision.
The local development plan policy which
includes a presumption against a manager’s dwelling on caravan
sites was found not to be applicable. The policy related to
“new builds” and not as in this case the use of an existing
building namely the holiday cottage. In relation to national
policy the Inspector was not obliged to apply any test of
“essentiality” or “special justification” because these tests apply
to new dwellings in the open countryside and not the “re use” of
existing buildings such as the existing holiday cottage in this
case.
The District Council was given permission by
the judge to serve appeal papers – if it wished to do so -
within 21 days of the receipt of the transcript of the
case. The judgement will be considered by the Council and its
advisors to determine whether an appeal is necessary in the
circumstances.
Ryedale District Council were ordered to pay
the Secretary of State’s costs which amounted to £6,844.
Cllr Brian Cottam, Chairman of Ryedale
District Council’s Planning Committee, said: “ At the time we
appealed against the inspectors decision we considered that his
decision was against the policies contained in our current
plan.”
Gary Housden the District Council’s Head of
Planning Service stated “This is naturally a disappointing result
for the Council. There was a genuine concern that the
Planning Inspector had given inadequate reasons for departing from
the Council’s development plan policies protecting the open
countryside from sporadic residential development. The Judge
found that the Planning Inspector could rely on the argument that
whilst Mr Sleightholme’s occupation of the holiday cottage was not
essential to supervise the caravan rallies on the paddock it was
beneficial. This decision will help the Council review its
emerging policies on re-use of existing buildings in the open
countryside”.
The background to this case is that both
National and Local Planning policy is one of strict control of
residential development in the open countryside. Historically
this policy has helped protect the open countryside from sporadic
housing development in the open countryside”.
The case concerned Mr Douglas Sleightholme who
occupied Cherry Tree Barn, Nawton, a barn conversion in the open
countryside for permanent residential accommodation in breach of a
planning condition restricting its occupation for holiday
accommodation purposes only.
Following the receipt of local complaints
about a breach of planning control and an investigation the
District Council issued an enforcement notice on
21 April 2009 requiring the holiday cottage to be used for holiday
accommodation purposes only.
On appeal against the enforcement notice the
appellant Mr Sleightholme argued that he needed to occupy the
holiday cottage at Cherry Tree Barn on a permanent basis because he
needed to manage the use of an adjoining paddock in his ownership
for occasional caravan rallies lasting up to five days which were
organised by the Caravan and Camping Club.
In his decision letter dated 7 September 2009
Mr Michael Hurley, the Planning Inspector allowed the appeal.
The Inspector attached weight to the argument that it was
“beneficial” for the appellant to live at Cherry Tree Barn even
though it was not essential.
The implications of the Planning Inspector’s
decision were of concern to Ryedale Planning Officers because the
problem for the Council is there are countless other buildings
similar to Cherry Tree Barn scattered throughout Ryedale District
with adjoining paddocks. It was considered that the precedent
that this decision set could prejudice the ability of the Council
to properly exercise its adopted Council Policy of controlling
residential development in the open countryside.
Accordingly the District Council challenged
the Inspector’s decision letter in the Administrative Court by
statutory appeal on the basis that the decision was legally flawed
for a number of reasons including the reasoning in the decision did
not support the conclusions that national and local policy should
not be followed. The view that the decision was flawed was
supported by learned Counsel Mr John Pugh-Smith of Chambers at 39
Essex Street, London. However that view was not supported by
Mr Justice Stadlen.
Development plan policy in the District
Council’s emerging LDF (Local Development Framework) will need to
reflect emerging national policy which is moving away from the
policy of promoting commercial use of existing buildings in the
open countryside (including holiday cottage use) in preference to
permanent residential use.