Planning permission – Green belt – Change of use – Gypsy claimant seeking change of use of green belt land to caravan site – Defendant local authority refusing application – Claimant challenging refusal of temporary planning permission – Whether first defendant’s inspector failing to give adequate reasons for refusal –- Application granted
The claimant and others placed caravans on green belt land. An application for retrospective planning permission for retention of the caravans was refused by the second defendant council which issued enforcement notices requiring cessation of the use of the site for caravans and the removal of hard standings. Appeals against the enforcement notices were dismissed. The second defendant accepted that all the occupants were gypsies as defined in annex 1 to the Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS) of March 2012 and the planning inspector had applied the planning policies for gypsies and travellers.
A further application for change of use for the siting of two static caravans and four touring caravans and the storage of two towing caravans was refused by the second defendants. On 22 May 2012, an appeal against that decision was dismissed by the first defendant’s inspector who also refused to grant temporary planning permission. The claimant made an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, seeking an order quashing the decision to refuse temporary permission.
The first defendant agreed, before the hearing date, to concede the claim and a consent order had been lodged by which the first defendant agreed that the decision in question should be quashed on the grounds that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons for his conclusion that temporary planning permission should not be granted. The second defendants declined to sign the consent order.
It was the second defendants’ case that the inspector had made it plain that harm to the green belt was so significant that it could only result in dismissal of the appeal, including the application for temporary planning permission. Looking at the decision letter as a whole, the inspector had had regard to the wider area and the claimant’s case was based on an assertion, not evidence based, of a reasonable expectation of a likelihood of a change in planning circumstances.
Held: The application was granted.
(1) Although the first defendant had conceded the claim it was clear that, in performing its functions under section 288(5)(b) of the 1990 Act, the court had to form its own objective assessment in determining the challenge. Although the court had to give weight to the fact that the first defendant, who had responsibility for applying the policies, had conceded the claim, that weight had to be limited given the absence of any explanation from the first defendant as to why the claim was conceded.
(2) Reading the letter as a whole, as the court was required to do, the inspector had not taken into account the argument that there was a reasonable expectation that alternative sites would become available in the wider area. That was self evident from the words used, which focussed entirely on the needs in the immediate area and the absence of any evidence that the second defendants would embark on a new needs assessment. Given the inspector’s findings as to the significant need for sites at regional and county level, it followed that it was reasonable to expect that sites would become available in the wider area. To that extent the inspector had failed to take into account, when considering the question of temporary planning permission, whether planning circumstances would change in the wider area within the period of time for which temporary planning permission was sought.
(3) In all the circumstances, there a real possibility that consideration of the matter would have made a difference to the decision. There was substantial doubt as to whether the inspector had reached his decision having taken account of all relevant matters. He might have reached the same conclusion but, in the absence of reasons, substantial doubt was raised whether the decision was based on all of the relevant grounds, including the question of expectation of availability of sites in the wider area. As a consequence, the claimant had been substantially prejudiced and it was appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to quash the inspector’s decision: Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1990] 61 P& CR 343 applied. Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 153 considered.
(4) Similarly, it was not known from the reasons whether the inspector took account of the argument in respect of the wider area within the period of time for which planning permission was sought. As such, even recognising that the reasons were addressed to parties who were familiar with the issues and arguments, they were inadequate as it could not be understood what conclusion had been reached on that important controversial issue. Accordingly, the statutory appeal succeeded and the decision of 22 May 2012 would be quashed.
Marc Willers (instructed by Lester Morrill, of Leeds) appeared for the claimant; The first defendant did not appear and was not represented; David Manley QC (instructed by Chorley Borough Council Legal Services) appeared for the second defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Linfoot v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another
Planning permission – Green belt – Change of use – Gypsy claimant seeking change of use of green belt land to caravan site – Defendant local authority refusing application – Claimant challenging refusal of temporary planning permission – Whether first defendant’s inspector failing to give adequate reasons for refusal –- Application grantedThe claimant and others placed caravans on green belt land. An application for retrospective planning permission for retention of the caravans was refused by the second defendant council which issued enforcement notices requiring cessation of the use of the site for caravans and the removal of hard standings. Appeals against the enforcement notices were dismissed. The second defendant accepted that all the occupants were gypsies as defined in annex 1 to the Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS) of March 2012 and the planning inspector had applied the planning policies for gypsies and travellers.A further application for change of use for the siting of two static caravans and four touring caravans and the storage of two towing caravans was refused by the second defendants. On 22 May 2012, an appeal against that decision was dismissed by the first defendant’s inspector who also refused to grant temporary planning permission. The claimant made an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, seeking an order quashing the decision to refuse temporary permission.The first defendant agreed, before the hearing date, to concede the claim and a consent order had been lodged by which the first defendant agreed that the decision in question should be quashed on the grounds that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons for his conclusion that temporary planning permission should not be granted. The second defendants declined to sign the consent order.It was the second defendants’ case that the inspector had made it plain that harm to the green belt was so significant that it could only result in dismissal of the appeal, including the application for temporary planning permission. Looking at the decision letter as a whole, the inspector had had regard to the wider area and the claimant’s case was based on an assertion, not evidence based, of a reasonable expectation of a likelihood of a change in planning circumstances.Held: The application was granted. (1) Although the first defendant had conceded the claim it was clear that, in performing its functions under section 288(5)(b) of the 1990 Act, the court had to form its own objective assessment in determining the challenge. Although the court had to give weight to the fact that the first defendant, who had responsibility for applying the policies, had conceded the claim, that weight had to be limited given the absence of any explanation from the first defendant as to why the claim was conceded.(2) Reading the letter as a whole, as the court was required to do, the inspector had not taken into account the argument that there was a reasonable expectation that alternative sites would become available in the wider area. That was self evident from the words used, which focussed entirely on the needs in the immediate area and the absence of any evidence that the second defendants would embark on a new needs assessment. Given the inspector’s findings as to the significant need for sites at regional and county level, it followed that it was reasonable to expect that sites would become available in the wider area. To that extent the inspector had failed to take into account, when considering the question of temporary planning permission, whether planning circumstances would change in the wider area within the period of time for which temporary planning permission was sought.(3) In all the circumstances, there a real possibility that consideration of the matter would have made a difference to the decision. There was substantial doubt as to whether the inspector had reached his decision having taken account of all relevant matters. He might have reached the same conclusion but, in the absence of reasons, substantial doubt was raised whether the decision was based on all of the relevant grounds, including the question of expectation of availability of sites in the wider area. As a consequence, the claimant had been substantially prejudiced and it was appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to quash the inspector’s decision: Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1990] 61 P& CR 343 applied. Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 153 considered.(4) Similarly, it was not known from the reasons whether the inspector took account of the argument in respect of the wider area within the period of time for which planning permission was sought. As such, even recognising that the reasons were addressed to parties who were familiar with the issues and arguments, they were inadequate as it could not be understood what conclusion had been reached on that important controversial issue. Accordingly, the statutory appeal succeeded and the decision of 22 May 2012 would be quashed.Marc Willers (instructed by Lester Morrill, of Leeds) appeared for the claimant; The first defendant did not appear and was not represented; David Manley QC (instructed by Chorley Borough Council Legal Services) appeared for the second defendants.Eileen O’Grady, barrister
