PlanningEnforcement notice requiring removal of hard surface used for periodic feeding of livestock - not permitted development for 'accommodating livestock' - inspector irrational to require removal of all materialsTaylor v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another: QBD (Jackson J): 26 November 2000Two enforcement notices were issued on 5 August 1999 in respect of breaches of planning control at the appellant's farm, alleging: (1) a change of use of the farm land from agricultural use to agricultural use and use for the unauthorised importation and deposit of waste materials including builders' rubble, road menders' rubble and spoil; and, (2) without planning permission, the carrying out of engineering or other operations including the laying of a hard surface and a track, and requiring the removal of the hard surfaces, track and material stored on the land.

The inspector dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding that the hardstandings were used as feeding areas for the sheep and for accommodating livestock and therefore not permitted within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

The appellant appealed pursuant to section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.Mary Macpherson (instructed by Malcolm C Brown, Farnham Common) for the appellant.

Michael Gibbon (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the secretary of state.Held, allowing the appeal, that the words 'accommodating livestock' for purposes of Class A.1(d) in part 6 of schedule 2 to the 1995 order 1995 denoted some form of habitation; that a surface on which sheep periodically fed fell outside that definition; that the hardstandings were used for other purposes; that, since some of the waste material was appropriate and necessary for the purpose of agriculture, the appellant would be entitled to bring part of the material back onto the site if required to remove it and the course taken by the inspector in requiring all the hardstanding and track to be removed would put the appellant to needless work and expense and served no useful purpose; and that the inspector ought therefore to have exercised his power to vary the notices to allow some waste materials to remain on site and, accordingly, the decision was irrational.