England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		18 May 2005

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN:

Introduction

1. This is an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the Act") to quash a decision of an Inspector appointed by the first defendant dismissing the claimant's appeal against a decision of the second defendant to refuse planning permission for the reconstruction of a former Grade II listed villa outbuildings access and landscaping on land at Bollington Lane, Nether Alderley, Macclesfield ("the site"). The Inspector's decision is contained in a decision-letter dated 10 November 2004.
2. The claimant owns the site and has an option to purchase the remaining parts of a former Grade II listed villa, Sandown Hall, which was demolished following the grant of listed building consent by the Secretary of State in 2000.

The decision-letter

3. In paragraph 2 of the decision-letter the Inspector identified the main issues:

"The appellant is seeking to rebuild Sandown Hall (a former Grade II villa) within open countryside which is within the North Cheshire Green Belt. Both national guidance and development plan Policies seek to restrict development in such a location. In addition, due to a potential oversupply, Macclesfield Borough Council is seeking to regulate housing development. Consequently the main issues are:

a) whether there are very special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt,

b) the impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and

c) the impact of the proposed dwelling on the supply of housing within the Borough."

The Inspector identified the relevant policies in the structure and local plans and referred to National Guidance, including PPG2 - Green Belt, PPS7 - sustainable development in rural areas and PPG15 - planning and the historic environment. In paragraphs 7 to 13 of the decision-letter the Inspector described Sandown Hall and traced the history of its decline. So far as relevant for present purposes, he said:

"7. Sandown Hall was a large suburban villa built between 1823 and 1830 at Olive Lane, Wavertree, Liverpool. A two-storey, double-pile property in the Classical style ...

11. By the mid 1990s the property had suffered severe structural damage. Nevertheless, following a public inquiry in 1996, an application to demolish the property was dismissed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. At that time, the Inspector considered Sandown Hall to be of historic interest and a fine early example of the Greek revival style. The condition of the property continued to deteriorate, with a second public inquiry relating to demolition being held in 1998. Although this later Inspector agreed with the earlier analysis of his colleague regarding the quality and interest of the structure, for a number of reasons he recommended that listed building consent be granted for demolition. In his decision-letter dated June 2000, the Secretary of State accepted that the cost of restoring and refurbishing the building for a new use would be likely to exceed its subsequent value, and reluctantly agreed with the Inspector's recommendation.

12. A section 106 Agreement following this consent required the preservation of those parts of the Hall which were of note - the portico, tri-partite windows, and the pediment to the front elevation. These features were dismantled, recorded and given to Liverpool City Council. However a contractor (who at that time was unconnected with the building) purchased the remaining stonework which was recorded prior to dismantling and storage. Other features retained include chimney stacks and stairs.

13. Although the elements subject to the Section 106 Agreement initially formed an architectural monument, they were subsequently reunited with the remaining material. As a result, the appellant contends that some 90% of the original stonework is stored and recorded. Because the brickwork and areas of render to the rear of the Hall were of little architectural value and not preserved, this equates to some 50% of the overall building being available for reconstruction. A comprehensive photographic record within the aforementioned RCHME survey would assist such a venture."

4. Against this background the Inspector dealt with the first issue in paragraphs 14 to 25 of the decision-letter. His conclusions on the second and third issues are not challenged in these proceedings. In paragraph 14 the Inspector said:

"14. The appeal site lies some 3 kilometres to the south of Alderley Edge village, and some 8 kilometres west of Macclesfield town centre in the rural parish of Nether Alderley..."

Having described the appeal site in greater detail, the Inspector summarised the claimant's proposals in paragraph 16:

"16. The appellant wishes to replicate as far as possible the former siting, appearance, internal layout and setting of Sandown Hall, and contends that the location of the appeal site would echo the original semi-rural setting close to the outskirts of a major commercial centre. The existing outbuilding would be demolished, and the reconstructed Hall positioned approximately a third of the way into the site, with the interior layout based on the RCHME records and photographs. It would be approached along a new access drive from Bollington Lane, whose route adjacent to the eastern site boundary would again reflect the alignment and orientation of the original."

After giving further detail of the proposed development in paragraph 17 the Inspector set out his own reasoning in paragraphs 18 to 25, first encapsulating the claimant's principal submission:

"18. As stated, the appeal site lies within open countryside within the North Cheshire Green Belt. There is no dispute that the appeal proposal would represent inappropriate development in such a location, and that the relevant criteria in both PPS7 and PPG2 must be satisfied in order to substantiate approval. The appellant contends that the circumstances relating to the survival and retention of a significant proportion of the fabric of Sandown Hall affords an exceptional, if not unique, opportunity to rebuild and restore a former listed building. Such a scheme would be both innovative and ground-breaking, and would amount to very special circumstances in support of the appeal proposal.

19. My attention has been drawn to correspondence between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODOM) and the Traditional Architecture Group (TAG) regarding the interpretation of paragraph 11 of PPG7. When referring to outstanding and ground-breaking designs and the highest standards in cotemporary architecture, it would appear to discourage more traditional buildings. However, in correspondence to TAG dated 24 September 2004, the ODPM confirmed that 'it is not the Government's intention to impose or dictate a particular style preference through the policy set out in PPS7'.

20. Whilst such a statement might well engender some support for the proposed reconstruction, such an operation would be by no means truly innovative or exceptional. A number of historic buildings have been either moved complete, or demolished and subsequently rebuilt at a different site. The appellant sought to establish a direct comparison between the appeal application and Hill House and Hanson House. Both of these latter properties were sited within the Green Belt and listed Grade II, and both were taken down and re-erected as a consequence of the construction of a second runway at Manchester Airport; one still within the Green Belt - one in open countryside beyond the Green Belt.

21. These properties were local to the area. Their demolition was the direct result of a development project of regional, if not national, importance, and which were subject to a public inquiry and determination by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport. Both Secretaries of State and the inquiry inspection supported their reconstruction, which was the subject of a Unilateral Undertaking prepared in 1995 by Manchester Airport PLC with regard to Macclesfield Borough Council, and which sought to rebuild the structures as close as possible to their original locations. Consequently, I do not consider that the circumstances pertaining to Hill House and Hanson House are directly comparable to the scheme before me.

22. Turning now to the appearance and character of Sandown Hall, with regard to the historic environment both paragraphs 32 of PPG1 and 1.1 of PPG15 states that this adds to the quality of our lives by enhancing the familiar and cherished local scene and sustaining the sense of local distinctiveness. Such a situation would not apply to the appeal proposal. Arising from the adoption of the Greek revival style and its origins in Liverpool, Sandown Hall has no direct architectural or historic affinity or connections with the Macclesfield area generally, nor Nether Alderley in particular. In addition, the reconstructed building would no longer be listed.

23. The appellant readily acknowledges his desire to remain in the Macclesfield area. Consequently the area of search for an appropriate site for the reconstruction of Sandown Hall was focussed on this locale. The appellant contends that because Alderley Edge has some of the highest land values in Cheshire, it is only here that the proposed development would be viable, with the end value being at the very least equal to the total cost. Whilst within the Macclesfield area this might be so, I am not convinced that a suitable site could not be found elsewhere within the north of England or even the United Kingdom - one which would not be at odds with long established principles and guidance regarding development of the Green Belt.

24. Reference has been made to the proximity of 'Yardwoods' and other dwellings to the west of the appeal site. Notwithstanding any interpretation of the design emphasis of paragraph 11 of PPS7, in such circumstances the appeal proposal would not accord with the 'isolated new house' criteria included within this paragraph.

25. For these reasons I am of the opinion that there are no very special circumstances to justify the appeal proposal. As such, it would fail to accord with the main thrust and/or relevant criteria of Structure Plan Policy GEN2, Local Plan Policies GC1, and guidance within PPG2 and PPS7. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the fact that the proposed landscape works would undoubtedly visually enhance the site, and afford associated ecological benefits. However, such a situation does not outweigh the fundamental inappropriateness of the scheme before me."

Having dealt with the second and third issues, the Inspector's overall conclusions were set out in paragraph 30 as follows:

"30. In many respects, I consider the appeal application to be finely balanced. It would bring back to life a building of acknowledged architectural and historical importance, and as such it might well accord with the spirit of Local Plan Policy BE1. Nevertheless, for the above reasons I conclude that there are no very special circumstances to support the rebuilding of Sandown Hall within the Green Belt. Such development would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, and contrary to the Council's objective of restricting the supply of housing within Macclesfield Borough."

The claimant's submissions

6. On behalf of the claimant, Mr Tucker submitted that the decision-letter was flawed in three broad areas. First, the Inspector misinterpreted/misapplied the policy guidance contained in PPS7. Second, the Inspector's reasoning in response to the claimant's contention that there were very special circumstance which justified a grant of planning permission in the Green Belt was deficient. Third, the Inspector had failed to deal with the claimant's fall-back position - what would happen to the stored remains of Sandown Hall if planning permission was refused. I will deal with these three areas of criticism in turn.

PPS7

7. The relevant paragraphs of PPS7 are as follows:

"9. In planning for housing in their rural areas, local planning authorities should apply the policies in PPG3. They should:

(i) have particular regard to PPG3 guidance on the provision of housing in villages and should make sufficient land available, either within or adjoining existing villages, to meet the needs of local people; and

(ii) strictly control new house building (including single dwelling) in the countryside, away from established settlements or from areas allocated for housing in development plans.

10. Isolated new houses in the countryside will require special justification for planning permission to be granted. Where the special justification for an isolated new house relates to the substantial need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside, planning authorities should follow the advice in Annex A to this PPS.

11. Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area."

8. Three complaints are made under this head of challenge. First, it is submitted that the inspector confined his attention to paragraph 11 of PPS11 and failed to consider whether the claimant's proposal fell within paragraph 10. The two examples of "special justification" given in paragraphs 10 and 11 - the essential need for accommodation for a worker and outstanding design - were merely examples. Other circumstances might provide special justification. The matter was put thus in closing submissions on behalf of the claimant before the inspector:

"2.7... The guidance in PPS7 establishes a restrictive policy context for isolated dwellings in the open countryside, however it also accepts that if a 'special justification' can be demonstrated then such a dwelling would not be objectionable (para 10).

2.8 Thus were the Inspector to conclude that the proposal did not fall within the precise terms of paragraph 11 of PPS7 but that the circumstances of the case amounted to a 'special justification' then the grant of permission would be consistent with national guidance in PPS7.

2.9 However, properly interpreted, the Appellant's proposals do indeed fall within the terms of paragraph 11 of PPS7. ..."

9. Mr Tucker submitted that although compliance with the policies in PPS7 was not raised as a discreet issue it was part of the claimant's argument that there were very special circumstances which justified development in the Green Belt in accordance with the policies in PPG2. If the Inspector failed to deal with paragraph 10 of PPS7, then he failed to place into the balance the full extent of the very special circumstances which the claimant contended justified the grant of planning permission.
10. I accept Mr Coppel's submission on behalf of the first defendant, that the focus of the claimant's case as presented to the Inspector was upon paragraph 11 and not paragraph 10 of PPS7. The only "special justification" advanced was that summarised by the Inspector in paragraph 18 of the decision-letter:

"That the circumstances relating to the survival and retention of a significant proportion of the fabric of Sandown Hall [afforded] an exceptional if not unique opportunity to rebuild and restore a former listed building."

It was contended that those circumstances fell within paragraph 11 of PPG7.

11. It will be noted that the Inspector did not dismiss the claimant's contention because the proposals did not fall precisely within the terms of paragraph 11. Having considered the exchange of correspondence between the ODPM and the TAG, he accepted, in paragraph 20 of decision-letter, that "such a statement might well engender some support for the proposed reconstruction". He then went on to consider whether or not the proposal could be described as "truly innovative or exceptional". If he was entitled to conclude that the proposals were not truly innovative or exceptional then, in the light of the case as presented to him, there was no basis for concluding that there was some other "special justification" for the purposes of paragraph 10.
12. On the facts of this particular case the claimant's submission is, in any event, a wholly artificial construct. While there might be cases in which the "very special circumstances" relied upon for the purposes of PPG2 are different from the "special justification" relied upon for the purposes of PPS7, in the present case the circumstances which were said to amount to "special justification" (the exceptional if not unique opportunity to rebuild and restore a former listed building) were also said to amount to the "very special circumstances" for the purposes of PPG2. If the Inspector was not persuaded that those circumstances were indeed very special, it was of no consequence whether they might have crossed the lower threshold of "special justification". As the claimant acknowledges, compliance with PPS7 was not one of the main issues (see paragraph 2 of the decision-letter). Thus there was no need for an express reference to paragraph 10, provided the Inspector considered the substance of the claimant's case as to what constituted the very special circumstances. The relevant paragraphs of the decision-letter are set out above. The Inspector clearly considered whether the circumstances relied upon by the claimant (for the purposes of both PPS7 and PPG2) were very special circumstances for the purposes of Green Belt policy, and concluded that they were not.
13. Second, it is submitted the Inspector erred in paragraph 24 in his approach to the criterion of an "isolated new house". Mr Tucker submitted that in the context of paragraphs 9 to 11 of PPS7 "isolated" meant simply that the new dwelling was proposed outwith a village or settlement. Mr Coppel did not seek to defend the Inspector's reasoning in paragraph 24 in relation to the meaning of "isolated", but submitted that it made no difference in any event since the Inspector had already concluded that the proposals did not comply with either PPS7 or PPG2. I accept that submission. Paragraph 24 adds nothing of substance to the reasoning in paragraphs 20 to 23.
14. Thirdly, in dealing with paragraph 11 it was submitted that the inspector had not grappled with the concept of design, he had simply focussed on the proposal to move the former listed building from one location to another. I confess that I found this criticism of the decision-letter somewhat difficult to understand. It is plain that, whatever its scope, paragraph 11 of PPS7 is principally concerned with the design qualities of new country houses. In summary, it is intended to enable country houses fit for the 21st century to be built. Whether or not such new country houses may be constructed in a traditional architectural style (see paragraph 19 of the decision-letter), paragraph 11 is plainly not concerned, at least directly, with re-erecting early 19th Century villas that have been demolished. Thus the Inspector was entitled to say in paragraph 20 of the decision-letter that the ODPM's statement that PPS7 was not intended to dictate a particular style preference "might well engender some support for the proposed reconstruction". But on any basis that was as far as the point could be taken, since this was still a proposal to reconstruct an old building, and not to build a new one (in whatever style).
15. It was submitted that the Inspector had misinterpreted the scope of paragraph 11 and treated the word "exceptional" as if it meant unique. It was submitted that the proposal was undoubtedly unusual and innovative. Mr Kelsall, a former historic buildings inspector who was called as a witness on behalf of the claimant, had said in his evidence that he was not aware of comparable cases. He referred to the number of demolitions of salvageable buildings as being minuscule, gave examples of what had happened in Macclesfield in consequence of the building of the second runway to Manchester airport, and said:

"The opportunity to rebuild Sandown Hall on a new site is therefore an unusual one - an opportunity not likely to be repeated."

16. In my judgment, this criticism of the decision-letter is an exercise in semantics. Of course the proposal was an unusual one, but the test in paragraph 11 of PPS7 is deliberately stringent. It is only "very occasionally" that the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of the proposed isolated new house may provide the necessary "special justification." To emphasise just how occasional this special justification will be, the next sentence makes the point that the design should be "truly outstanding and ground-breaking." It is pre-eminently a matter of planning judgment whether what was proposed in relation to the remains of Sandown Hall was "truly" innovative or exceptional. The Inspector referred to other examples, indicating why in his view the proposal was not truly exceptional, but went on to explain why he considered that those other examples were not comparable principally, but not exclusively, because those listed buildings were relocated as close as possible to their original locations (see paragraph 21 of the decision-letter).
17. For these reasons I do not accept the submissions in respect of PPS7.

Very special circumstances

18. The Inspector described the extent of what could be reconstructed in paragraph 13 of his decision-letter:

"... the appellant contends that some 90% of the original stonework is stored and recorded. Because the brickwork and areas of render to the rear of the Hall were of little architectural value and not preserved, this equates to some 50% of the overall building being available for reconstruction."

19. There is no criticism of this summary of the claimant's case in relation that aspect of the matter, but it is said that the Inspector did not return to this issue later in his reasoning. I do not accept that having mentioned this matter the Inspector was under any obligation to repeat it. He had no need to do so since the extent to which the building could be reconstructed does not appear to have been in issue. It was not, for example, raised as an issue in the second defendant's closing submissions, and there is nothing in the decision-letter to suggest that the Inspector did not accept the claimant's contention that some 50 per cent of the overall building was available for reconstruction.
20. A similar criticism is made in respect of paragraphs 16 and 18 of the decision-letter. It will be remembered that in those paragraphs the Inspector had summarised what it was that the claimant wished to do and why the claimant contended that those circumstances amounted to very special circumstances which justified a grant of planning permission in the Green Belt. No criticism is made of the manner in which the Inspector summarised the claimant's case; rather, it is said that there is no indication in the remainder of the decision-letter as to whether the Inspector accepted or rejected those aspects of the claimant's case. If the decision-letter is read as a whole, it can be seen that this complaint, too, is highly contrived. Far from there being any indication that the Inspector disagreed with this aspect of the claimant's case, he said in terms in paragraph 30 that the appeal proposal "would bring back to life a building of acknowledged architectural and historical importance". He therefore thought that the appeal application was "finely balanced".
21. The question for the Inspector was what weight should be given to these factors in the balancing exercise? In its closing submissions the second defendant had argued that:

"7. By moving the building [Sandown Hall] from its context much of its historical value and significance in those terms is lost. As accepted by Mr Kelsall, the historic significance of Sandown Hall is partly derived from the fact that Hugh Hornby lived there and that he was a prominent figure in Liverpool, being the Mayor from 1838-39 and the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Council. Indeed Mr Kelsall told us that a library in Liverpool has been named after him. The history of the building has no such links to Macclesfield or Manchester.

8. In more recent times (from 1920 to 1990), much of the building's significance was its value in the local scene as the sports and social club for Crawfords Biscuits company. Mr Kelsall told us that the company employed around 5000 local people and it is clear that the memory of that era is cherished by the local people of Wavertree. However, again no such memories exist in Nether Alderley.

9. Furthermore, whilst there are some similarities between the original location in Wavertree and the proposed location, there is an important difference: in its new location the building will have a very different relationship with the city of Manchester than it had in its original location with the city of Liverpool. It is important to note that the building was located only 5km from the centre of Liverpool whereas it would be 20-25km from the centre of Manchester."

22. I appreciate that there was evidence pointing in the other direction, some of it produced by third parties at the inquiry. But on a fair reading of paragraph 22 of the decision-letter it is clear beyond any doubt that the inspector agreed with the second defendant's case in this respect:

"Arising from the adoption of the Greek revival style in its origins in Liverpool, Sandown Hall has no direct architectural or historic affinity or connections with the Macclesfield area generally, nor Nether Alderley in particular."

Thus, while the Inspector accepted that there was merit in the claimant's proposal to bring Sandown Hall back to life (see paragraph 30), the advantages of doing so in a location with which it had no direct architectural or historic affinity or connections were not such as to amount to very special circumstances which would justify a grant of planning permission in the Green Belt. That was to be contrasted with the two cases which the Inspector had mentioned in paragraph 21 of the decision-letter where listed buildings had been rebuilt "as close as possible to their original locations".

23. The reasoning in paragraph 23 of the decision-letter is said to be inadequate because there was no evidence before the Inspector that there was a prospect, let alone any realistic possibility, of Sandown Hall being reconstructed on any other site within the United Kingdom. Thus it was submitted that in paragraph 23 the Inspector was simply engaging in mere speculation. It is important to appreciate the narrow focus of paragraph 23 of the decision-letter. The Inspector recognised that the appellant wished to remain within the Macclesfield area and had focussed his search on that locale. He also understood that the claimant was saying that proposed development had to be viable, hence the need to choose a site where there were high land values so that the end value would, at the very least, be equal to the total cost. All the Inspector was saying in paragraph 23 was that while high land values might well be limited to Alderley Edge within the Macclesfield area, he was not convinced that a suitable site (ie a site with sufficiently high land values) could not be found elsewhere within the north of England or even the United Kingdom. He was not going further than that.
24. In adopting this approach, he was doing no more than agreeing with a submission that had been made by the second defendant in closing:

"Finally, on the issue of Green Belt, it has not been proven that the suggested benefits of the proposal could not be achieved elsewhere in a non Green Belt location. The search for sites has been limited by the preferences of the appellant. However, the personal preferences of the appellant are not a material consideration. It may be that a non Green Belt location for the reconstruction could be found elsewhere in the country."

That issue having been raised by the second defendant, the Inspector was entitled to, in essence, agree with it in part, and to observe that, whilst Alderley Edge might be one of the areas of highest land values within Cheshire thus making the proposal viable, there might well be other such areas in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The fall-back position

25. Finally, I turn to the fall-back position. It is submitted that there was evidence before the Inspector that if the appeal was dismissed the probability was that the remains of Sandown Hall would be exported overseas. But this probability was not mentioned by the Inspector in his decision-letter.
26. In response to a contention in the first defendant's skeleton argument that it was mere assertion on the part of the claimant in closing submissions that there was a "realistic prospect" of this occurring, the claimant produced a witness statement giving details of what he had told the Inspector during the course of the inquiry. He said in that witness statement:

"... during the course of my oral evidence I made it clear that, in my view on the basis of my conversations with Mr Griffiths and my own knowledge of the circumstances of the case that it was probable that in the event of the appeal being dismissed that the component parts of Sandown Hall would be 'lost to the nation'. This is a matter about which I and the many supporters of my Appeal felt strongly about as it would be a real loss to the nation's heritage."

Mr Griffiths was the contractor (referred to in paragraph 12 of the decision-letter) who had purchased the remaining stonework. A letter from Mr Griffiths was produced to the Inspector in which Mr Griffiths said:

"If planning permission is not granted Jane and I will have to review the situation which may mean exportation of the Hall to Japan or America."

Jane was his wife and the other partner in the JNJL Griffiths Partnership. Mr Griffiths in his letter explained how he had come to purchase the remains of Sandown Hall and how interest in the stones had been shown from "as far away as Japan and America." Thus there was, at the very least, a distinct possibility that if planning permission was refused the remains of Sandown Hall would be exported.

27. Was the Inspector required to refer to this matter in his decision-letter? In my judgment he was not. It was not suggested that the fate of the stored stones, in the event of a refusal of planning permission, was a principal issue. It would have been self-evident to the parties at the inquiry that Mr Griffiths might well sell them to some overseas purchasers. This was not a case of there being a dispute between the parties at the inquiry, with the second defendant saying that it was most unlikely that that would occur and the claimant saying that it was highly likely to occur. The narrow focus of paragraph 23 of the decision-letter will be recalled. The Inspector was not there assuming that if planning permission was refused then someone else would wish to rebuild Sandown Hall on some other site outside the Green Belt: he was merely pointing out that at least in terms of viability there might be other high land value areas within the north of England or even the United Kingdom that were outside the Green Belt. He was doing no more than that. There is certainly no suggestion that he was proceeding upon the basis that if planning permission was refused for the proposed rebuilding on this site, then it was likely to take place on some other site within the United Kingdom.
28. That approach is readily understandable once the basis of the Inspector's decision is appreciated. While the Inspector considered that there would indeed be merit in bringing Sandown Hall back to life, if that could only be done on a site which had no connections with the original site, the merits of rebuilding were not so great as to justify a grant of planning permission in the Green Belt (see paragraphs 21 and 22 of the decision-letter). Thus the importance of making these particular stones live again on a "new" site was not so great as to outweigh Green Belt policy. If that was so, then it mattered not whether as a result the stones remained within Great Britain and were re-erected on a non-Green Belt site (with no connections with the original site) or whether they went abroad. Re-erection of Sandown Hall was simply not regarded by the Inspector as being of such consequence as to justify the use of Green Belt land (see paragraph 30 of the decision-letter).
29. I realise that the claimant profoundly disagrees with that judgment and considers that there will be a considerable loss to the nation. Understandably he must be bitterly disappointed, because he has put a great deal of time, money and effort into the proposal. But he has to recognise that the Inspector simply took a different view of the significance of re-erecting the Hall. On the Inspector's approach to the matter it was not a major issue as to whether the stones would or would not be exported if permission was refused: the major issue in the Inspector's view was whether or not bringing this building back to life justified the use of Green Belt land. He concluded that it did not.
30. For these reasons I am satisfied that there is no error of law in the Inspector's decision. Matters of planning judgment were for him, and although the claimant profoundly disagrees with the Inspector's judgment, this challenge to the decision must fail. For these reasons the application is dismissed.
31. MR TUCKER: My Lord, I would ask for summary assessment of the Secretary of State's costs. A schedule has been prepared and I hope your Lordship has a copy. My learned friend, I know, does have a copy, and as I understand it he is agreeable to the sum there shown.
32. LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Is it £5,262?
33. MR COPPEL: That is correct, my Lord.
34. LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Can I just out from Mr Tucker whether he has any objection of principle or detail?
35. MR TUCKER: My Lord, no objection in principle or detail.
36. LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Thank you very much. The application is dismissed, the claimant is to pay the first defendant's costs, those costs summarily assessed in the amount claimed, £5,262.