Gypsy caravans — Green-belt land — Inspector recommending grant of planning permission — Secretary of state refusing permission — Educational needs of children — Judge holding secretary of state wrongly taking account of legal obligations of education authority — Appeal allowed
The respondent was the head of one of four gypsy families that had combined their resources to purchase land in the green belt. They placed their caravans on the land, laid hardstanding and carried out other landscaping works. They then applied to the local planning authority for retrospective planning permission to use the land as a gypsy caravan site. The authority refused permission and the gypsies appealed to the appellant secretary of state. Following a public inquiry, the secretary of state’s inspector recommended that a temporary planning permission be granted.
The secretary of state rejected that recommendation and dismissed the appeal. With regard to the children’s educational needs, he noted the legal obligation on the local education authority to provide suitable education to the children of school age, even if their families were on the road, and found that appropriate education would be available to the children.
The gypsies succeeded in a challenge to that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: see [2005] EWHC 2850 (Admin); [2005] PLSCS 202. The judge held that the secretary of state had taken account of an immaterial consideration in so far as he had been persuaded to differ from his inspector on the basis of the council’s legal obligation. He held that that factor could not reasonably have led him to reach that decision in circumstances where he did not have all the necessary information in respect of the educational disruption that the inspector had identified and was unaware of precisely what was involved in that disruption.
On appeal, the appellant contended that he had accepted all the inspector’s conclusions about the likelihood of disruption to the children’s education, but that he had been entitled to attach less weight to them than had the inspector. The respondent submitted that the secretary of state’s reasoning could be understood only as meaning that he was satisfied that the children would receive an appropriate education even if they had to leave the site. He argued that an education severely disrupted by a return to roadside camping and an itinerant way of life could not reasonably be regarded as “appropriate”.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The planning judgment in the instant case had rested with the secretary of state alone. He had been required to strike a balance between the interests of the community as a whole, as reflected in planning considerations, and the interests of the gypsies and their families, in particular the children’s educational requirements. He had been entitled to find that the balance favoured the community. He had not taken into account any matters other than those to be found in the inspector’s report, or differed from the inspector on any material fact. In saying that appropriate education would be available to the children, he was saying no more than that he was satisfied that the local education authority would comply with their statutory obligations so that places in suitable schools would be made available to the children. The education authority were not under a duty to ensure that all children in their area received an education that was appropriate to their needs and circumstances. Their obligation was to ensure that efficient and properly equipped schools of sufficient number and type were available to meet the needs of the local population. Whether and by what means parents and children took advantage of them was another matter.
Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the appellants; Alan Masters (instructed by Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the respondent; the second respondents, South Bedfordshire District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sally Dobson, barrister
