Mobile home occupied by gypsy family on privately bought plot in countryside area – Refusal of planning permission to retain home on site – Failure by inspector to give due weight to need for provision of suitable sites in accordance with Circular 1/94
In 1990 the appellants, both gypsies though with strong ties in the locality, bought a small plot in an area of mainly open countryside and settled there in a mobile home to raise a family of four children. According to the local plan the normal policy applicable to that area was one of curtailing residential development in the interest of protecting the countryside. The same plan recognised the need to provide land for the accommodation of gypsies but had not at any material time given full effect to Circular 1/94 calling for a strategic (plan-led) approach to meeting that need while continuing to protect local amenities.
Having made two previous unsuccessful applications for permission to retain the mobile home on the site the appellants met with a similar refusal when they again applied after that circular had come into force. On appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment the refusal was upheld by the inspector on his finding that there had been no material change since the last two applications to disturb the conclusion that the mobile home was visually intrusive in an open area, bearing in mind the generally sparse level of development along the road fronted by the plot. Before the High Court the appellants challenged that determination on the ground that the inspector had given insufficient weight to the need for appropriate sites as formulated in the 1994 circular.
Held The decision was quashed.
1. The inspector had fallen into error by treating the need for appropriate sites as an aspect of the personal circumstances of the applicant. That need , and whether it should be met by privately bought sites or otherwise, was now a significant planning consideration which had to be balanced against the need to protect the countryside. Though mindful of the lack of alternative sites, whether provided by the council or otherwise, the inspector had failed to give sufficient weight to that factor, which deserved even fuller consideration in the context of a small enquiry: see MJT Securities Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1996) 72 P&CR 342.
2. It was no answer that the inspector might well have reached the same conclusion if he had directed himself correctly. It would have been otherwise if he would have necessarily decided against the appellant: see generally per Purchase LJ in Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1988) 3 PLR 25.
Megan Thomas (instructed by Lance Kent & Co, Berkhamsted) appeared for the appellants; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; the second respondents, East Cambridge District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
