Green belt – Application for planning permission for permanent caravans on green belt site refused – Secretary of State applying test of “very special circumstances” in considering exception to green belt policy and dismissing appeal – Whether test appropriately applied – Section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – High Court dismissing application for decision to be quashed
In September 1996 the appellant applied for planning permission to site six permanent caravans on land at Pool Hey Crossing, Scarisbrick, Lancashire. West Lancashire District Council, the second respondents, refused the application and issued two enforcement notices restraining the siting of caravans and hardcore deposit. The appellant appealed. At the inquiry it was common ground that development on the site, being in the green belt, would not be within Policy 4 of the Lancashire Structure Plan or Policy GB1 of the West Lancashire local plan. However, the appellant claimed that the acknowledged need for affordable gypsy sites and the family’s medical and educational needs were material considerations that amounted to “very special circumstances” that were sufficient for the application to fall within the exception to the development plan. The inspector’s report on February 2 1998, adopted by the Secretary of State in his decision letter of May 15, concluded that the personal circumstances of the appellant and her extended family did not, on the evidence, constitute “very special circumstances” to overcome the strong policy presumption of inappropriate development. The appellant applied under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the decision to be quashed and submitted that the inspector and the Secretary of State had inappropriately applied the test of whether there were “very special circumstances” overriding the requirements of the development plan.
Held The application was dismissed.
The reference to “very special circumstances” by the appellant at the inquiry and in the inspector’s conclusions referred to para 3.1 in PPG 2 “Green Belts”. The guidance in para 3.1 stated “inappropriate development . . . should not be approved except in very special circumstances” and it was for that reason that the inspector had concluded that the appellant’s personal circumstances had not constituted “very special circumstances”. That was an entirely proper conclusion, which had appropriately been adopted by the Secretary of State and both the form and the substance of the Secretary of State’s decision had precisely and accurately followed the requirements of s 54A of the 1990 Act. Accordingly, there was no reason to interfere with the decision.
David Watkinson (instructed by McGrath & Co, of Birmingham) appeared for the appellant; Christopher Katkowski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; the second respondents, West Lancashire District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
