The landowner made an attempt to strike down as ultra vires a condition attached to a planning permission. The condition related to an agricultural use condition where the occupant was not substantially dependent upon income from what was described as a hobby farm.
Held: The condition was valid because the appellant had not shown that it was unreasonable, that it was unrelated to or inconsistent with the policy underlying the relevant planning proposals, or that irrelevant considerations had been taken into account.
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘I take first the more broad and general attack by counsel for the company on the validity of the condition, viz., that in spite of the generality of the language of s. 14 (1) of the Act, ‘such conditions as they think fit’, it is not open to the local planning authority to impose a condition in reference to a proposed structure related not to the manner in which the building may be used (e.g., as a residence, or as a shop, etc.) but to the class of persons who may use or occupy it. On this point I am content to adopt the conclusion and reasoning of ROXBURGH, J., who stated that acceptance of such an argument would involve reading some gloss or qualification into the language chosen by Parliament and that he could find no sufficient justification for doing so.’
. . And ‘To my mind the most difficult question is whether, when regard is had, on the one hand, to the planning scheme and proposals of the council, and the reasons given by the council for the imposition of the condition in December, 1952, and, on the other hand, to the scope and effect of the condition itself according to a fair interpretation of the language, the latter ought to be treated as having been beyond the council’s powers, not being fairly and reasonably related to the former. In formulating the question, I have, as a matter of language, substituted (by reference) the words ‘the planning scheme and proposals of the council’ for the words used by ROXBURGH, J., ‘the local planning requirements’. Both forms of words depart somewhat from the language of LORD DENNING in Pyx Granite Co., Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1) ([1958] 1 All E.R. 625), where he spoke (ibid., at p. 633) of the requirement that the conditions should ‘fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development’.’
Judges:
Lord Evershed MR
Citations:
[1959] 2 AII ER 321
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Agriculture
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.554793