Planning policy — Caravan site — Retrospective planning applications — Refusal of planning permission — Inspector dismissing appeal — Whether inspector erring in finding site would cause serious harm outweighing needs of residents — Appeal allowed
The appellant had stationed caravans upon land that had been used as a gypsy caravan site since 1998, when 27 plots with hard-standings and roadways had been constructed. The second respondent council had served enforcement notices. These had been upheld by the first respondent’s inspector, although the inspector had considered it possible to meet the need for gypsy accommodation by way of a smaller-scale site. The appellant had applied for retrospective planning permission to retain four plots on the site, but an appeal against that decision had concluded that the serious harm that the site would cause outweighed the needs of the site’s residents.
The appellant’s appeal against that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed, on the basis that the inspector had set out his reasoning in clear and adequate detail, had been entitled to take a different view from that of his predecessors and had made no error of law.
The appellant appealed, contending that the inspector had erred in taking into account: (i) the fear of crime, (ii) the shift from authorised to unauthorised sites and (iii) the competition for local work.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The inspector had relied upon considerations that were not properly open to him, and would not necessarily have reached the same decision had he not done so. Accordingly, the determination would be quashed and the application remitted for reconsideration by the first respondent: Simplex GE Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] 3 PLR 25 applied.
(i) Although the fear of crime was capable of being a material consideration, the fear and concern had to have some reasonable basis. In the present case, not only had the number of incidents of crime diminished, but those reported to the inquiry could not be reliably attributed to the appeal site or the appellant. When taking those incidents into account, it was necessary to attribute them not only to the individuals concerned but also to the use of the land. The inspector had erred in comparing a gypsy caravan site to a polluting factory or a bail hostel; land used for a gypsy caravan site did not inherently create the real concern that attached to an institution such as a bail hostel: West Midlands Probation Committee v Secretary of State for the Environment [1996] PLSCS 293 considered.
(ii) The inspector had erred in concluding that a grant of planning permission would undermine government policy to direct gypsy caravans to authorised sites. The statistics relied upon by the inspector gave no indication as to where the caravans had come from and whether they had left authorised sites.
(iii) The inspector had erred in relying upon the evidence from a gypsy liaison officer as to the risk of undue competition for local work and potential conflicts between gypsy communities, without better understanding its meaning and implications.
Marc Willers (instructed by South West Law) appeared for the appellant; Andrew Sharland (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; Eian Caws (instructed by the Director of Legal Services, Mid Bedfordshire District Council) appeared for the second respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
