Court of Appeal restores inspector's decision to uphold farm redevelopment refusal

It was clear why the inspector had decided the appeal as he had and adequate reasons had been given for his decision, the judge said.

The Council had refused to grant permission to Proudfoot Properties for the demolition of a former pig farm in Crowborough, East Sussex, and the construction of six new houses. It said that the development was outside the planning boundaries set out in local policies and that the site was within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The owner of Proudfoot Properties, David Proudfoot, sought to overturn the decision, however, the appointed planning inspector decided to uphold the refusal.

Proudfoot claimed that he had ceased to use the pig farm on the understanding that the Council would permit the change of use. He appealed the inspector's decision and said that he was "substantially prejudiced" by the inspector's failure to adequately explain his reasons for upholding the Council's refusal. The High Court judge agreed and quashed the inspector's decision.

"The inspector ought to have informed the parties whether he accepted Proudfoot's argument that he had closed the pig rearing unit on the understanding that the local authority had agreed to give permission for alternative development on the site."He did not do so, merely referring to the evidence and the dispute between the parties," the judge said in the High Court judgment in July last year.

The Court of Appeal judge overturned the High Court's decision and said that it had been "clear what the inspector had decided and why". It was implicit that the inspector had decided that, even if Proudfoot did have a 'deal' with the Council, his personal circumstances could not outweigh the substantial harm that the proposed development would cause, the judge said.