In April 2011, the government announced its intention to revoke Circular 01/2006: Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites and replace it with new planning policy. Shortly thereafter, it initiated a consultation relating only to England that ended on 6 July 2011. The new policy has yet to be published, and revocation is still awaited. The government has been concerned, however, for some time with the number of gypsy and traveller caravans on authorised sites and the current perception that planning policy treats such sites more favourably than it does other housing.
One of the issues in Smith v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] PLSCS 65 arose out of that government announcement. There, the claimant – who was a gypsy – had appealed against the refusal of the local planning authority to grant planning permission for a change of use of land within the green belt from agricultural use to use as a private caravan site. The inspector appointed by the secretary of state took the view that the announcement by the government was a material consideration that had to be taken into account, and as a result he gave less weight to Circular 01/2006. He recommended upholding the refusal, and the secretary of state did so.
The claimant applied to the High Court to quash that decision. She contended principally that the secretary of state had acted irrationally in giving less weight to Circular 01/2006 on the basis that he had decided to revoke it, but had not yet done so, as it was impossible to predict which parts might be amended or replaced as at the date of his decision letter.
The court dismissed the application, holding that a prospective change in planning policy was capable of being material and could be considered in deciding whether to grant planning permission. Furthermore, the weight to be given to any prospective change was a matter for the planning judgment of the decision maker in each particular case. There might be cases where the weight given was irrational, but the factors relied on by the claimant here did not demonstrate the point that she was seeking to make. If the absence of Circular 01/2006 could be given weight by the decision maker, it was impossible to see that an intention to revoke could not lead the decision maker to attribute less weight to it.
John Martin is a freelance writer
