Green-belt land — Planning permission for gypsy site — Whether shortage of gypsy sites and applicant’s personal circumstances amounting to very special circumstances justifying grant of permission — Claim dismissed
The second defendant applied to the claimant council for planning permission to use land as a gypsy caravan site for himself and his family. The land was situated in the metropolitan green belt and also fell within a designated area of great landscape value. The claimants refused the application, but permission was subsequently granted by an inspector on an appeal to the first defendant Secretary of State.
The inspector found that the accommodation needs of the second defendant and his family were specific, immediate and acute, in that no realistic alternatives were open to him despite his having used every effort to find one. She noted that: (i) although the second defendant had applied for a pitch on an authorised site, it was not certain whether one would be allocated to him in the near future, since priority would generally be given to the families of existing tenants; (ii) there was a significant shortfall of authorised gypsy sites in the area and no likelihood of increased site provision; (iii) land prices in the area were high for sites that were likely to be granted planning permission; and (iv) financial and other constraints prevented the second defendant from moving to a private mobile-home park. She therefore concluded that his personal circumstances and lack of alternative accommodation, together with the general shortage of gypsy sites, amounted to very special circumstances that outweighed the harm to the site from the inappropriateness of the development and the limited harm from encroachment on the countryside. She accordingly found that the grant of planning permission was justified.
The claimants sought to quash that decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They contended that the circumstances that the inspector had relied upon could not reasonably be described as being very special, since the shortage of sites affected many other gypsy families that were also unable to find a site. They pointed out that the grant of permission to the second defendant could set a difficult precedent that might lead to applications from many others in similar circumstances.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The inspector had approached the required balancing exercise in the right way and had carefully examined each element of harm and of the second defendant’s personal circumstances. She had been uniquely placed to decide whether the factors that she had to consider could be described as being very special. Her conclusion that circumstances existed that could, objectively, be viewed as very special was not perverse or one that she could not have reasonably reached.
Although it might have been difficult to show that a single circumstance was very special, several circumstances might, in aggregate, be found to be very special: R (on the application of Chelmsford Borough Council) v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 2978 (Admin); [2004] 2 PLR 34 distinguished.
If an applicant were found to have very special circumstances, that fact could not be denied him or her merely because others might be in the same position. It would be for other applicants to show that they had very special circumstances, and the threshold that they might have to pass was high. However, if they could do so, then so be it: Chelmsford and R (on the application of Basildon District Council) v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 2759 (Admin) considered.
Mark Beard (instructed by the solicitor to Mole Valley District Council) appeared for the claimants; Philip Coppel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Valerie Easty (instructed by the Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the second defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister