Second respondent gypsy unlawfully occupying green-belt land — Gypsy suffering from chronic ill health — Whether ill health constituting “very special circumstances” so as to override planning constraints — Appeal allowed
The second respondent gypsy owned green-belt land upon which she had placed a mobile home and other outbuildings in contravention of planning policies. In 2000, the council refused planning permission in respect of the site. However, that decision was subsequently overturned by an inspector, who granted planning consent on the ground that the second respondent’s chronic ill health constituted “very special circumstances” so as to override the presumption against inappropriate development as set out in PPG 2. The consent was granted subject to, inter alia, a condition that the permission was personal to the second respondent.
In 2002, the council challenged the decision. At the hearing, the Secretary of State agreed to submit to a judgment quashing the decision on the ground that the inspector had failed to deal with the issue of precedent, but, in any event, the council’s challenge was dismissed. They appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The fact that the inspector had failed to deal with the issue of precedent was not a ground for quashing the decision. No precedent had been established because, in order to ascertain “very special circumstances”, any other applicant would have to demonstrate equally compelling reasons for a decision on a case-by-case basis. However, very special circumstances could not be established simply by setting out a catalogue of hardship. A more comprehensive approach was required, and a decision letter would have to incorporate a full, clear and cogent analysis of the situation.
In this case, the decision letter had failed to address the unlawfulness of the applicant’s occupation, which was in persistent breach of planning control. This, in itself, was a circumstance that required the decision to be quashed. The relevance of the applicant’s status as a gypsy was also material, especially in the light of the fact that the dwelling had the appearance of a permanent dwelling, an issue that was not sufficiently considered by the inspector. Both these issues were considered in Chapman v United Kingdom (27238/95) (2001) 33 EHRR 18, which identified the material considerations that the decision letter was to address in a full and comprehensive manner. The council were entitled to have the case for hardship considered in this broad context, and the decision letter required more detailed reasoning.
Timothy Straker QC and Ian Albutt (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the appellants; Charles George QC and Stephen Cottle (instructed by the Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the second respondent; the first respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
