Private caravan site — Occupation by gypsies — Absence of planning permission — Application for planning consent refused — Appeal against that refusal dismissed — High Court holding that Secretary of State entitled to refuse permission — Applicants suffered no prejudice
The applicants occupied land at The Paddock, Long Acre and Green Acre, Meadow Grove, Willingham, Cambridgeshire, as a private gypsy caravan site without planning permission. The district council refused planning consent based on the past record of crime and violence in the vicinity of a council gypsy site. The applicants appealed to the Secretary of State who accepted his inspector’s recommendation and dismissed their appeal. The inspector had concluded that the continued use of the appeal sites as caravan sites detracted from the character and appearance of the open countryside. Moreover, there were no material considerations in support of the applicants’ proposals sufficient to outweigh that harm, bearing in mind that the occupants were gypsies.
The applicants then appealed against that decision contending that the Secretary of State had failed to comply with the rules of natural justice, failed to consider material factors and failed to give adequate reasons for his decision that there was no overriding need in the area for additional provision for gypsies as there were vacant pitches at the official site.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The Secretary of State had explained which planning policies were relevant to his decision and how much weight should be given to them.
2. There was no such thing as a technical breach of natural justice. There was no breach unless the applicants had suffered substantial prejudice: see George v Secretary of State for the Environment (1979) 77 LGR 689.
3. There was no unfairness in this case because the applicants’ submissions were invited on additional policies not discussed at the inquiry. Their post-inquiry representations were material considerations to which the Secretary of State had regard. The applicants did not ask to make any further representations. There was no reason why they could not have done so if they had wished despite the absence of an express invitation: see Robert Hitchins Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] EGCS 101.
4. The inspector had made findings on the safety issue in relation to the official site. She had reservations about the present suitability of the official site but formed the opinion that that did not outweigh the harm to the countryside and conflict with policy. It was well established that the inspector’s reasons might be shortly stated: see Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] AC 661.
5. A council was under a duty to think about both travellers and local residents and to strike a reasonable balance of their conflicting needs: see R v Wealden District Council, ex parte Wales [1995] EGCS 145.
6. The Secretary of State had balanced any considerations on the suitability of the official council site against the council’s positive approach to providing sites and the proximity of the council site to local schools. There was nothing improper or unintelligible about the reasons given. The reasons were adequate and there was no prejudice to the applicants: see Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 3 PLR 17.
Timothy Jones (instructed by Thorpes, of Hereford) appeared for the applicants; David Holgate (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State.
