Travellers – Planning permission – Human rights – Claimant seeking planning permission to pitch mobile home on green belt land – Second defendant local authority refusing permission – Inspector appointed by first defendant secretary of state dismissing appeal – Claimant applying to quash inspector’s decision – Whether inspector failing to consider psychiatric evidence showing claimant with chronic anxiety in enclosed spaces – Whether inspector failing to consider imposition of personal condition and claim for temporary planning permission – Whether inspector failing to consider right to family life – Application granted The claimant and his wife purchased land in an open field in the green belt as an ideal location to pitch a mobile home to enable him and their son to live in a location which would provide a solution to the claimant’s chronic anxiety when in enclosed spaces, his need for an open-air lifestyle and enable the claimant’s wife to care for him and his son on a daily basis, whilst also caring for her chronically disabled sister at her home. In those circumstances, the claimant applied to the second defendant local authority for planning permission to place his mobile home on the land for residential purposes. When the second defendant failed to give notice of a decision on the claimant’s application within the prescribed period, the claimant brought an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Evidence given by psychiatrists and the claimant’s general practitioner indicated that the claimant suffered from an apparently untreatable chronic anxiety state or condition which overcame him when he was in any enclosed space; and that the claimant suffered depression and a personality disorder and was illiterate with a relatively low IQ. An inspector appointed by the first defendant secretary of state dismissed the claimant’s appeal. She concluded, inter alia, that the grant of full planning permission would create a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and that it was in conflict with the green belt. Moreover, temporary planning permission would be inappropriate given that there was no realistic prospect of a change in the claimant’s psychiatric condition. The claimant challenged that inspector’s decision refusing to grant either full or temporary planning permission pursuant to section 288 of the 1990 Act. He contended that the inspector had failed properly to consider: (i) the psychiatric evidence and to assess the weight to be given to that evidence; (ii) the claimant’s and his family’s right to family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and (iii) the imposition of a personal condition and the claim for temporary planning permission. Held: The application was granted. (1) The inspector had erroneously confined her consideration of the psychiatric, psychological and medical evidence to the claimant’s fear of enclosed spaces. As a result, her conclusion that there was no evidence that the only site that the claimant could live on was the appeal site was based on an incomplete evaluation of the available evidence and her proportionality assessment was both incomplete and inadequate. Her decision neither mentioned nor took into account much of the professional evidence. The evidence that was available to her included the very significant evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant that his claustrophobic-type condition, taken in conjunction with his personality disorder, the constant pain he lived with from his hand injuries, his recurrent flashbacks, his depressive and suicidal tendencies, his low IQ and illiteracy and his difficulties coping with life all coalesced into the need to live in a secluded and open-air environment close to his wife who, from necessity, was living with her sister nearby in order to provide her with the full-time care that she needed but could not otherwise obtain. (2) The inspector had failed to consider the claimant’s family life to any significant extent and did not consider each of the four family members’ enjoyment of family life with the other three. Furthermore, she did not pay any respect to the son’s and the wife’s home in the mobile home on the appeal site. Finally, there were significant gaps in the consideration of each of the family member’s entitlement to respect for their respective home lives on the appeal site and the claimant’s wife and sister-in-law’s family and private lives and home life at the claimant’s sister-in-law’s home. The inspector’s reasons also showed that the vital decisions concerned with the proportionality of the refusal decision and the rejection of a temporary and personal permission were not arrived at in a structured manner and in compliance with the Human Rights Act and relevant planning policies, did not take account of highly relevant considerations and were not reached after an appropriate balancing of the applicant’s and his family’s respective interests against the community interests involved. (3) The inspector should have considered four linked possibilities having ruled out the grant of full planning permission: (i) amending the terms of the permission so as to reduce the perceived harm caused by the proposal; (ii) a personal condition; (iii) a time-limited condition; and (iv) the appropriate length of a time-limited condition. The inspector had failed to consider three of those possibilities and erroneously limited her consideration of a time-limited condition to the possibility of a change in the claimant’s psychiatric condition. Accordingly, the inspector’s decision could not stand since it did not take into account a series of requirements that it should have complied with. Michael Rudd (instructed by Bramwell Browne Odedra, of Chesham) appeared for the claimant; Lisa Busch (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; The second defendant did not appear and was not represented. Eileen O’Grady, barrister
AZ v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another
Travellers – Planning permission – Human rights – Claimant seeking planning permission to pitch mobile home on green belt land – Second defendant local authority refusing permission – Inspector appointed by first defendant secretary of state dismissing appeal – Claimant applying to quash inspector’s decision – Whether inspector failing to consider psychiatric evidence showing claimant with chronic anxiety in enclosed spaces – Whether inspector failing to consider imposition of personal condition and claim for temporary planning permission – Whether inspector failing to consider right to family life – Application granted The claimant and his wife purchased land in an open field in the green belt as an ideal location to pitch a mobile home to enable him and their son to live in a location which would provide a solution to the claimant’s chronic anxiety when in enclosed spaces, his need for an open-air lifestyle and enable the claimant’s wife to care for him and his son on a daily basis, whilst also caring for her chronically disabled sister at her home. In those circumstances, the claimant applied to the second defendant local authority for planning permission to place his mobile home on the land for residential purposes. When the second defendant failed to give notice of a decision on the claimant’s application within the prescribed period, the claimant brought an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Evidence given by psychiatrists and the claimant’s general practitioner indicated that the claimant suffered from an apparently untreatable chronic anxiety state or condition which overcame him when he was in any enclosed space; and that the claimant suffered depression and a personality disorder and was illiterate with a relatively low IQ. An inspector appointed by the first defendant secretary of state dismissed the claimant’s appeal. She concluded, inter alia, that the grant of full planning permission would create a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and that it was in conflict with the green belt. Moreover, temporary planning permission would be inappropriate given that there was no realistic prospect of a change in the claimant’s psychiatric condition. The claimant challenged that inspector’s decision refusing to grant either full or temporary planning permission pursuant to section 288 of the 1990 Act. He contended that the inspector had failed properly to consider: (i) the psychiatric evidence and to assess the weight to be given to that evidence; (ii) the claimant’s and his family’s right to family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and (iii) the imposition of a personal condition and the claim for temporary planning permission. Held: The application was granted. (1) The inspector had erroneously confined her consideration of the psychiatric, psychological and medical evidence to the claimant’s fear of enclosed spaces. As a result, her conclusion that there was no evidence that the only site that the claimant could live on was the appeal site was based on an incomplete evaluation of the available evidence and her proportionality assessment was both incomplete and inadequate. Her decision neither mentioned nor took into account much of the professional evidence. The evidence that was available to her included the very significant evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant that his claustrophobic-type condition, taken in conjunction with his personality disorder, the constant pain he lived with from his hand injuries, his recurrent flashbacks, his depressive and suicidal tendencies, his low IQ and illiteracy and his difficulties coping with life all coalesced into the need to live in a secluded and open-air environment close to his wife who, from necessity, was living with her sister nearby in order to provide her with the full-time care that she needed but could not otherwise obtain. (2) The inspector had failed to consider the claimant’s family life to any significant extent and did not consider each of the four family members’ enjoyment of family life with the other three. Furthermore, she did not pay any respect to the son’s and the wife’s home in the mobile home on the appeal site. Finally, there were significant gaps in the consideration of each of the family member’s entitlement to respect for their respective home lives on the appeal site and the claimant’s wife and sister-in-law’s family and private lives and home life at the claimant’s sister-in-law’s home. The inspector’s reasons also showed that the vital decisions concerned with the proportionality of the refusal decision and the rejection of a temporary and personal permission were not arrived at in a structured manner and in compliance with the Human Rights Act and relevant planning policies, did not take account of highly relevant considerations and were not reached after an appropriate balancing of the applicant’s and his family’s respective interests against the community interests involved. (3) The inspector should have considered four linked possibilities having ruled out the grant of full planning permission: (i) amending the terms of the permission so as to reduce the perceived harm caused by the proposal; (ii) a personal condition; (iii) a time-limited condition; and (iv) the appropriate length of a time-limited condition. The inspector had failed to consider three of those possibilities and erroneously limited her consideration of a time-limited condition to the possibility of a change in the claimant’s psychiatric condition. Accordingly, the inspector’s decision could not stand since it did not take into account a series of requirements that it should have complied with. Michael Rudd (instructed by Bramwell Browne Odedra, of Chesham) appeared for the claimant; Lisa Busch (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; The second defendant did not appear and was not represented. Eileen O’Grady, barrister
