The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, adopted a “discriminatory” policy of calling in all planning appeals by gypsies and travellers concerning green belt land, a judge has found.
Though the percentage of such cases he called in was reduced to 75% from September, that still remains in breach of the Equality Act 2010, Gilbart J ruled.
As a result, the legitimacy of many call-in decisions has been left in doubt, and he called for a review to decide which recoveries were justified.
Describing the problem, the judge said: “In broad terms, the SSCLG has taken steps to recover planning appeals for determination by himself where they relate to proposals for pitches, whether occupied by one or more caravans, within the green belt. Although at first he did not seek to recover all such appeals, he was doing so from the latter part of 2013, and did so until September 2014, when he reduced the percentage recovered to 75%. That has had the effect of causing considerable delay in the hearing and determination of those appeals, and because the great majority of such appeals relate to pitches used by particular ethnic communities (Romany gypsies and Irish Travellers), the effect of the practice has led to this challenge.”
He said it was entirely clear that the effect of the policy “put ethnic gypsies and travellers at a disadvantage”, namely that their appeals would take far longer to determine.
As a result, he said that he was in no doubt that there had been a failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) imposed by the Act in two representative cases, brought by Romany gypsies Charmaine Moore and Sarah Coates, with the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
He added: “In the case of both Mrs Moore and Ms Coates, only one reason was given for the recovery of their respective appeals, which was the fact the appeals related to travellers’ pitches in the green belt. No other reason was given in writing, which suggests that either possessed any other feature, or raised any other issue, requiring recovery by the SSCLG. I conclude therefore that their appeals’ recoveries were each vitiated by the breach of this duty and by the indirect discrimination towards the ethnic group of which they are members.”
He said that the issues raised arose in many other cases, and that the effect of his judgment may be to “call into question the legality of many other recoveries”, adding: “No doubt sorting out which should or should not be recovered will involve some time and resources being expended, although it will no doubt be less than the time and cost spent in dealing with judicial review claims by many others should a review not be conducted.
“But this difficulty has not come about through any fault of the claimants, nor of those who oppose their planning appeals. It has come about because the minister concerned elected to follow the path he did from August 2013 onwards despite warnings from his officials and the chief planning inspector about the backlog of appeals that would be created.”
Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Planning Court (Gilbart J) 21 January 2015
Timothy Jones (instructed by Community Law Partnership Ltd, Birmingham) for the claimant Charmaine Moore
Stephen Cottle (instructed by Community Law Partnership Ltd, Birmingham) for the claimant Sarah Coates
Christopher Buttler (instructed by Rosemary Lloyd, Equality and Human Rights Commission) for the intervener
Rupert Warren QC and David Blundell (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant
