PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court on 9 September 1994 by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“), within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). It originated in an application (no. 19178/91) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a British citizen, Mr John Bryan, on 29 October 1991. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 24 September 1994, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr R. Bernhardt, Mr F. Matscher, Mr I. Foighel, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr D. Gotchev and Mr U. Lohmus (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the United Kingdom Government (“the Government“), the applicant’s lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the applicant’s memorial on 28 February 1995 and the Government’s memorial on 7 March 1995. The Secretary to the Commission later informed him that the Delegate would submit her observations at the hearing.

On 2 May 1995 the Commission produced to the Court the documents in the proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the President’s instructions.

In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 23 May 1995. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr I. Christie, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent, Mr D. Pannick, QC, Mr D. Anderson, Barrister-at-Law, Counsel, Mr D. Russell, Ms E. Dixon, Ms L.M. Aspinall, Department of the Environment, Advisers; (b) for the Commission Mrs J. Liddy, Delegate; (c) for the applicant Mr E. Owen, Barrister-at-Law, Counsel, Mr R.M. Napier, Solicitor, Mr E. Schofield, Adviser. The Court heard addresses by Mrs Liddy, Mr Owen and Mr Pannick as well as replies to its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant, Mr John Bryan, is a farmer and a contractor. He was born in 1931 and resides in Warrington, Cheshire.

On 4 December 1989 an enforcement notice was issued and served on Mr Bryan by the Vale Royal Borough Council requiring the demolition of two brick buildings on land which the applicant had bought in 1987. The enforcement notice recited that there appeared to the Council to be a breach of planning control in that the two brick buildings had been erected without the necessary planning permission. The notice required the applicant to demolish the buildings and remove the building materials within three months. In doing so, the authorities acted in accordance with section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which consolidated earlier legislation (“TCPA“ - see paragraph 18 below).

The applicant appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment under section 174 (2) (a), (b), (g) and (h) TCPA (see paragraph 19 below).

In accordance with the relevant legislation (see paragraph 20 below), an inspector was appointed to conduct an inquiry and determine the appeal. He was a Principal Housing and Planning Inspector, a civil servant and a member of the salaried staff of the Department of the Environment. He had been appointed by the Secretary of State after approval of the Lord Chancellor. In his decision letter of 1 October 1990 the inspector rejected the appeal under grounds (a), (b), and (g) but allowed it under ground (h) to the extent that the compliance period should be extended from three to six months. He held, inter alia, as follows: “The appeal on ground (b) ... (12) What I need to decide in respect of this ground of appeal is whether, as a matter of fact and degree, the buildings could, from their appearance and layout, be considered to have been designed for the purposes of agriculture. I conclude, from examination of photographs taken during construction and from noting the alterations made since, that the Council were right to be concerned that the appeal buildings had the appearance of large detached houses. The size, layout, and original external appearance of the buildings and their detailing did little to change that view. (13) In my opinion, as originally constructed, the buildings would have led any reasonable person to have concluded that he or she was looking at the start of a small new detached housing estate. Indeed, that appeared to be the widely held view of many local people, supported by the local Member of Parliament, who were concerned to see what was being built on the edge of the village. The more recent construction of an, as yet, uncompleted but similar building close to the two appeal buildings serves to compound the effect. (14) But it is the original appearance of the two appeal buildings and particularly the first assessment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which convinces me that the buildings were not requisite or reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Numerous features of the buildings were more suited to houses than barns. The original openings in building No. 1 were said to be doorways for a veal calf unit. But this building did not incorporate internal drainage considered necessary for such stock. The doorways appeared to have been more likely to have been useful as window openings, none reached ground level as built; one was almost waist high above outside ground level measured from the lower edge of the unbonded brickwork added later. Other features in both buildings include the extensive use of Georgian-style windows and other windows made for domestic use. I understand that Mr Bryan’s contacts allowed him to buy these windows cheaply. But whatever their source, they contribute to an impression that the buildings look more like houses than barns. There are other features which add to that view. The use of domestic-style eaves and gable barge boarding. The residential look of the ‘porch’ to No. 1 building. And the [Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s] view about the uneconomic layout of both buildings as originally built all add to the impression that these buildings were not designed for agricultural purposes, albeit they have since been modified and adapted for such a use. (15) You said that the buildings looked like many local old barns. But it is my view that, as originally built, the appeal buildings would have looked much more like houses. They did not look as if they had been designed for the purposes of agriculture. My opinion is not altered by my finding them now being used for storing hay. The appeal on ground (b) fails. The appeal on ground (a) (16) The appeal buildings lie in part of the green belt ... They also lie within the Higher Whitley Conservation Area but outside the village policy area for Higher Whitley shown on the draft Vale Royal Borough Local Plan. In my opinion, the decision turns on the following main issues. Whether, if the development is inappropriate to the green belt, there are any special circumstances to justify the granting of planning permission; secondly, whether the appeal buildings enhance or preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area. I shall also consider the effect of the development on the countryside surrounding the village. (17) ... (18) The appeal buildings have neither enhanced nor preserved the appearance of this part of the conservation area, rather the reverse. Much of the pleasant nature of the area is derived from the grouping of the older housing around the centre and from its rural and agricultural setting. The two appeal buildings look like part of a small estate of detached houses with access roads and suitable garden areas. The third building, not subject of this appeal, exacerbates this impression. (19) These objections amount to sound and clear-cut reasons why planning permission should be withheld. The fact that other buildings or buildings of a broadly similar nature, if considered to be designed for agricultural purposes, could be built under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, does not affect my decision. The appeal on ground (a) fails. The appeal on ground (g) (20) You said that demolition of the buildings and the removal of the materials was an excessive requirement. I do not agree. Harm to the purpose of the green belt has been caused. The appearance and character of the conservation area has not been either enhanced or preserved. Encroachment on the countryside has occurred. Making the buildings look more like those which might have been permitted development as you suggested could mitigate a little of the harm I have identified. But this is not just a matter of cosmetics. The main objections would remain. In my opinion, the proper and necessary course of action is that required by the notice. That includes removal of materials. Such a requirement would not preclude their re-use on site for any possible future permitted development. The appeal on ground (g) fails. The appeal on ground (h) (21) ... Mr Bryan wanted more time in order to erect a replacement or replacements before demolition. I see no need to insist on a period which would make undue difficulty for him. I will increase the period to 6 months ... (22) I have taken account of all the other matters raised, including the possibility of your client putting up a large steel-clad building under permitted development rights, but find they do not affect my decision.“

The applicant appealed against this decision under section 289 TCPA (see paragraph 24 below). In his Notice of Motion, the applicant first alleged that the inspector had “erred in law in applying the wrong test in deciding whether the buildings were permitted development under the provisions of the ... General Development Order“ and “in considering that the said buildings were not requisite or reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture when there was no evidence upon which any reasonable inspector could so find“. The subsequent grounds of appeal dealt expressly with grounds (a) and (g) of the appeal to the Secretary of State (see paragraph 9 above).

The appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 8 March 1991, the judge, Mr Lionel Read, QC, finding inter alia as follows: “A principal argument on behalf of the applicant at the inquiry under [ground] (b) was that the erection of the two buildings was permitted development under the General Development Order ... ... The applicant does not challenge the inspector’s decision under ground (b). Nevertheless paragraphs 14 and 15 of the decision letter, where he is still dealing with that ground, are relevant to the court’s consideration of his decision on grounds (a) and (g) ... ... In my judgment ... it cannot be said that the inspector failed to take into account the fact that the applicant might, within his General Development Order rights, erect buildings of a broadly similar nature. He addressed that very consideration in terms at paragraph 19 of his decision letter. Because the applicant had those rights and wanted more time to erect a replacement or replacements, the inspector extended the applicant’s time for complying with the enforcement notice under ground (h). Whether the existence of these General Development Order rights provided sufficient reason for the inspector to grant planning permission for the buildings in fact erected, whether or not conditioned as suggested by the applicant, was a matter for judgment - the inspector’s judgment. Whether another decision-maker would have reached the same conclusion as did this inspector is not to the point. Nor is the view of this court, which does not sit on appeal from the judgment of inspectors, relevant. I am unable to say that there was anything irrational in the inspector’s decision. In particular, the question whether the alterations proposed to a building were, as he evidently thought, a ‘matter of cosmetics’ and would not meet the main objections was entirely a matter of planning judgment for him. It is to be remembered that, in order to stay within his General Development Order rights, the applicant must erect replacement buildings which, by their appearance and layout, could be considered as designed for the purposes of agriculture. If they are, their effect on the green belt, the countryside and the conservation area is irrelevant to the exercise of that right. That does not, however, in my judgment mean that the inspector acted irrationally in concluding that the buildings in fact erected without permission under the General Development Order were objectionable and should be demolished. In the result, I find no error of law and I dismiss the application.“

At the hearing held before the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 October 1993, the applicant’s representatives stated that, although they had not represented the applicant before the High Court, they surmised that the challenge to the inspector’s ground (b) reasoning had been raised in the Notice of Motion and then abandoned at the hearing because of the limited jurisdiction of the High Court. In confirmation of this, the applicant furnished the Court with a statement by the barrister who had represented him in the High Court.

Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused. The Court of Appeal, on 11 June 1991, also refused leave to appeal.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e1
001-57954_a8_em1
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e2
001-57954_a8_em2
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e3
001-57954_a8_em3
CODE
DIRECT
19178/91
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57954_a8_e4
001-57954_a8_em4
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e5
001-57954_a8_em5
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e6
001-57954_a8_em6
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr John Bryan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e7
001-57954_a8_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
29 October 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e8
001-57954_a8_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e9
001-57954_a8_em9
PERSON
NO_MASK
Sir John Freeland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e5
001-57954_a8_em10
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e10
001-57954_a8_em11
PERSON
QUASI
001-57954_a8_em20
Mr R. Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e11
001-57954_a8_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
24 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e12
001-57954_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Bernhardt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e13
001-57954_a8_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Matscher
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e14
001-57954_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Mr I. Foighel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e15
001-57954_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e16
001-57954_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Makarczyk
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e17
001-57954_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Gotchev
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e18
001-57954_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr U. Lohmus
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e10
001-57954_a8_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e19
001-57954_a8_em21
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e20
001-57954_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e21
001-57954_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e22
001-57954_a8_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
2 May 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57954_a8_e23
001-57954_a8_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e24
001-57954_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
23 May 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e25
001-57954_a8_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Mr I. Christie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e26
001-57954_a8_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e27
001-57954_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Pannick
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e28
001-57954_a8_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Anderson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e29
001-57954_a8_em31
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Russell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e30
001-57954_a8_em32
PERSON
QUASI
Ms E. Dixon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e31
001-57954_a8_em33
PERSON
QUASI
Ms L.M. Aspinall
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57954_a8_e32
001-57954_a8_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Department of the Environment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e33
001-57954_a8_em35
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs J. Liddy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e34
001-57954_a8_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E. Owen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e35
001-57954_a8_em37
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R.M. Napier
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e36
001-57954_a8_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E. Schofield
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e33
001-57954_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
001-57954_a8_em35
Mrs Liddy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e34
001-57954_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
001-57954_a8_em36
Mr Owen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57954_a8_e27
001-57954_a8_em41
PERSON
QUASI
001-57954_a8_em29
Mr Pannick
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e6
001-57954_a8_em42
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr John Bryan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57954_a8_e37
001-57954_a8_em43
DEM
QUASI
farmer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57954_a8_e38
001-57954_a8_em44
DEM
QUASI
contractor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e39
001-57954_a8_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
1931
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e40
001-57954_a8_em46
LOC
QUASI
Warrington, Cheshire
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e41
001-57954_a8_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
4 December 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e6
001-57954_a8_em48
PERSON
QUASI
001-57954_a8_em6
Mr Bryan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e42
001-57954_a8_em49
ORG
QUASI
Vale Royal Borough Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e43
001-57954_a8_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e44
001-57954_a8_em51
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e32
001-57954_a8_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
Department of the Environment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e45
001-57954_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
1 October 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e46
001-57954_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
three to six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e47
001-57954_a8_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e6
001-57954_a8_em56
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bryan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e48
001-57954_a8_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57954_a8_e49
001-57954_a8_em58
LOC
QUASI
Higher Whitley Conservation Area
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57954_a8_e50
001-57954_a8_em59
LOC
QUASI
Higher Whitley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57954_a8_e51
001-57954_a8_em60
ORG
QUASI
Vale Royal Borough Local Plan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e6
001-57954_a8_em61
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bryan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e52
001-57954_a8_em62
DATETIME
QUASI
6 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e53
001-57954_a8_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e54
001-57954_a8_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
8 March 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57954_a8_e55
001-57954_a8_em65
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Lionel Read
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e56
001-57954_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
14 October 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e53
001-57954_a8_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e53
001-57954_a8_em68
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e53
001-57954_a8_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57954_a8_e57
001-57954_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
11 June 1991
John Bryan
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: John Bryan