QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
____________________
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF WINSTANLEY | Applicant | |
v | ||
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES & LOCAL GOVERNMENT | First Defendant | |
ROTHERHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL | Second Defendant |
____________________
DTI Global Trading as
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Mark Westmoreland-Smith (instructed by Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
The Second Defendant was not represented, did not attend
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"79 The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
80 Green Belt serves five purposes:
• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
• to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
..... "
"87 As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
88 When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly
outweighed by other considerations.
89 A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:
• buildings for agriculture and forestry;
• provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;
..... "
Those policies clearly applied to the application because it was for a new building within the green belt. It is necessary in the light of the issues raised before me to give a little more detailed analysis to them. First, paragraph 89 makes it clear that the construction of a new building in the green belt is to be regarded as inappropriate, subject to the exceptions there set out. The two exceptions which are of relevance in the present case are those in the first two bullet points. So far as the first bullet point is concerned, a building for agriculture or forestry is simply excepted. It is exempt from the consequences of the opening words of paragraph 89. So far however as concerns the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation or indeed for cemeteries, they are only exceptions "as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it". The exemption for buildings for agriculture and forestry is absolute. The exemption for appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and cemeteries is qualified.
"Re-submission of proposed horse-training barn and hay storage."
The word "re-submission" indicates a reference to the previous application but, as I understand it, the previous application did not in fact refer to a horse-training barn in those or any similar words. In any event, the previous application was not this application.
"The proposal is to erect two new stable blocks with WCs for facility with a central open barn for storage of hay or exercising of horses in poor weather. The horses to be stabled are to be racehorses which require regular and specialised training regimes. These type of horses are trained by the staff at the stables."
"The proposed for stables are to be used as a training facility for racehorses."
"9. The keeping of hay would be an agricultural use of the building. However the appealed application included the stabling and indoor training of sports horses which do not fall within the definition of agriculture identified in the 1990 Act and would be inappropriate development in the green belt."
I emphasise the words "do not fall" because that shows that the stabling and indoor training of sports horses were regarded by the inspector as two separate additional purposes, neither of which fell within the definition of agriculture. I draw that from the plural "do".