Green belt — Development — Gypsy caravan site — Retrospective planning application — Council refusing planning permission — Secretary of State refusing appeal contrary to inspector’s recommendation — Whether first defendant following proper procedure — Whether first defendant taking account of educational needs of children — Claim allowed
The claimant a gypsy had purchased land in the green belt upon which he placed eight caravans for four families, which included 11 children. He also erected sheds and constructed hardstanding for the caravans.
The claimant applied retrospectively for planning permission and appealed against the second defendant council’s refusal of his application. A public local inquiry took place before an inspector appointed by the first defendant. He recommended that permission be granted subject to a condition that it was limited to three years and personal to the claimant.
Although the inspector found that the development would be harmful to the green belt, he concluded that substantial and weighty material considerations outweighed that harm. These were: (i) the established need for sites in the area in the short term; (ii) the lack of available alternative sites; and (iii) the disruption to education and healthcare that would flow from a dismissal of the appeal.
The first defendant disagreed and dismissed the appeal. He concluded that the harm to the green belt and to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside was not outweighed by the considerations that the claimant relied upon as amounting to very special circumstances. In particular, on the issue of the children’s educational needs, he took account of the fact that the local education authority was legally obliged to provide suitable education to the children of school age, even if their families were on the road.
The claimant applied, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to have that decision quashed. He contended, inter alia, that the first defendant had failed to follow: (i) the requirements of r 17(5) of the Inquiries Procedure Rules 2000 by not affording the parties an opportunity to make written representations prior to reaching a decision at variance with the inspector’s recommendations; and (ii) the correct approach in respect of the educational needs of the children.
Held: The claim was allowed.
1. It was not necessary to apply r 17(5) of the 2000 Regulations in the present case since the first defendant had neither disagreed with the inspector on any finding of fact nor taken into account new evidence or any new matter of fact that would have obliged him to refer the matter back to the claimant for further comment.
2. Although the first defendant had recognised that problems relating to the education of the children were material in planning terms, he had placed particular weight upon the fact that the second defendant was under a duty to ensure their continued education even if their families were travelling and upon the fact that the children did not have any special educational needs.
The first defendant should have recognised that: (i) the children’s lack of educational problems stemmed from their settled lifestyle on the appeal site; (ii) their education had suffered in the past as a result of having no permanent base; and (iii) the current improvements were likely to deteriorate were their settled lifestyle to be disrupted. Furthermore, no suitable alternative sites were available within the area, so that the children might no longer be covered by the local education authority were they to go back on the road.
The case would be remitted to the first defendant for reconsideration.
Alan Masters (instructed by The Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant, the second defendant, South Bedfordshire District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
