Planning permission — Gypsy caravan — Green belt — Inspector confirming local authority’s refusal of planning permission — “Very special circumstances” — Whether Articles 8 and 14 of Human Rights Act 1998 adding extra element to Wednesbury considerations — Section 288 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Application dismissed
The claimants were gypsies who lived with their family on green-belt land within a developed residential area. This land had been the subject of a number of unsuccessful planning applications. In 2001, the claimants applied for planning permission to site two residential caravans and associated outbuildings on the land. At that time, the local authority plans, which had included a consideration of the shortage of local and national authorised gypsy sites, were under review. Planning permission was refused and the claimants appealed. They relied upon the following “very special circumstances”: (i) the acknowledged need for national gypsy sites; (ii) the particular need for local gypsy sites; (iii) their genuine gypsy status; (iv) their personal circumstances and those of their family; and (v) Articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The inspector dismissed the appeal on the ground that the “very special circumstances” had neither singly nor cumulatively rebutted the presumption against development of the green belt.
The claimants applied, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash the inspector’s decision, arguing that: (i) the inspector had erred in law in not taking into account the need for national and local provision of gypsy sites; (ii) since the local plan was, at that time, under review, the defendant local authority should have granted at least temporary planning permission until such time as policy regarding the provision of gypsy sites was determined, and, additionally or alternatively, the inspector should have considered the matter; and (iii) the inspector erred in law in failing to take account of Articles 8 and 14 of the 1998 Act. The claimants had genuine gypsy status, and living in a caravan was an integral part of their ethnic identity. Refusal of planning permission was an interference with that ethnic identity. Failure to take this into account made the inspector’s decision unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The inspector’s letter was clearly reasoned. He had considered the personal and national need for gypsy sites and, therefore, had not disregarded a material fact. This need was not a “very special circumstance”, but was a matter of planning judgment. The inspector had considered the grant of temporary planning permission. He was justified in concluding that although it might protect the green belt, it could not overcome the strong policy and environmental concerns regarding the land in question, which was in a very sensitive area. Interference with the claimants’ rights under Articles 8 and 14 was necessary and in proportion to the potential harm to the greater public interest.
Marc Willers (instructed by Bramwell Browne Odedra, of Chesham) appeared for the claimants; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants did not appear and were not represented.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
