Town and country planning

Claimant applying to use dwelling-house without complying with agricultural occupancy condition - council refusing - claimant appealing - inspector finding condition remaining useful and dismissing appeal - whether inspector acted unreasonably - application dismissedAgricultural occupancy condition Hawkins v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and another: Queen's Bench Division: Crown Office List: Mr Nigel Macleod QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Division:12 May 2000

Hawkins (the claimant) applied to the second respondents, Lewes District Council, to continue to use a dwelling-house without complying with an agricultural occupancy condition.

The council refused the application, and the claimant appealed.In his decision letter, the inspector identified the main issue as being the question of whether there were sufficient grounds for finding that the occupancy condition had outlived its usefulness, such that its retention was no longer warranted.The inspector considered, among other things, valuation evidence and guidance in PPG7 and concluded 'in these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence that the property is incapable of sale at a realistic price, I remain unconvinced that the condition has outlived its usefulness'.

Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.The claimant sought to quash the inspector's decision pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Three grounds were raised in the case: (i) that the inspector had acted unreasonably in concluding as he did; (ii) that the inspector had taken immaterial considerations into account; and (iii) that the inspector failed to give adequate reasons for his conclusions, which caused prejudice to the claimant.Held: The application was dismissed.The inspector was entitled to make a judgment as to whether he had a realistic assessment of the existing need for the condition before him, and he found he did not.

He was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that there were insufficient grounds upon which to find the condition had outlived its usefulness, and he gave adequate reasons as to why this was so.Paul Shadarevian (instructed by Gotelee & Goldsmith, of Ipswich) appeared for the claimant; David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.