Gypsies – Planning application for proposed caravan site – Council rejecting application – Inspector allowing appeal – Whether inspector incorrectly applying guidance on temporary planning permission – Whether model condition for restoring site on cessation of use enforceable – Application dismissed
The claimant local authority refused an application by the second defendant and other gypsies for planning permission to use green-belt land as a caravan site. The residents of the site were all gypsies within the definition set out in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
They appealed that decision. The first defendant’s inspector upheld their appeal and granted permission for the use of the land as a private gypsy caravan site comprising 10 plots.
She rejected the option of granting temporary permission for three years because she considered that there was a significant unmet need for gypsy sites and that the provision of alternative, affordable, acceptable and suitable sites would not be forthcoming in the near future. She therefore granted planning permission to named individuals subject to the condition, inter alia, that those individuals would restore the site in accordance with the relevant model condition once they ceased occupation under the terms of the permission.
The claimants applied to quash that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They contended, inter alia, that the inspector’s decision was unfair because she had applied too high a threshold when considering the grant of temporary planning permission; Circular 1/06 (which was published after the close of the inquiry) referred merely to the “reasonable expectation” of new sites becoming available during the permission period. Further, the claimants argued that the condition imposed in respect of the restoration of the site would be unenforceable because all the named occupants would have left the site by the time it became applicable.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The inspector was entitled to conclude that it was inappropriate to grant temporary planning permission. The test in para 45 of Circular 1/06, entitled “Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites”, was whether there was a reasonable expectation that new sites were likely to become available at the end of the proposed permission period. Considering the new circular as a whole, the inspector’s references to the likelihood of finding suitable, affordable and acceptable sites elsewhere were entirely reasonable.
In any event, it was difficult to see how the claimants could complain of unfairness when they had been given the opportunity to make representations concerning the new circular but had chosen not to do so.
Furthermore, the model condition for restorating the site was enforceable. It was possible to serve an enforcement notice on the landowner or any successive occupier, or, alternatively, the claimants could carry out any necessary restorative works themselves and apply a charge over the land in respect of any costs incurred.
Christopher Young (instructed by the legal department of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council) appeared for the claimants; Rupert Warren (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Alan Masters (instructed by the Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the second defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
