The landlord of an agricultural holding protected by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 served a notice to quit on the tenants. The landlord contended that since the land was required for non-agricultural use for which planning permission had been granted by a general development Order, namely the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, under Class B of Schedule 3 to the 1986 Act, the tenants could not require it to seek the consent of the First-tier Tribunal to the operation of the notice to quit. In arbitration proceedings, the tenants contended that having been made by the negative procedure, rather than being laid before both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative procedure, the 2015 Order had not been “approved by both Houses of Parliament”, for the purposes of Case B(b)(ii) and, therefore, could not be relied on by the landlord. The arbitrator decided as preliminary issue that the 2015 Order was one to which Case B(b) applied.
On the tenants’ appeal—
Held, appealed allowed. In the light of the ordinary meaning of the wording of Case Bb(ii) of Schedule 3 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, and the interaction of its separate parts, “an Order approved by both Houses of Parliament” required that the Order be made by the affirmative procedure. Accordingly, the arbitrator had been wrong to hold that planning permission arising from the permitted development rights contained in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 satisfied Case B(b)(ii) (paras 44, 53, 61, 77).
Catherine Taskis (instructed by Loxley Solicitors, Wotton-under-Edge) for the tenants.
Richard O'Sullivan (instructed by Irwin Mitchell Solicitors) for the landlord.