Enforcement notice issued against travellers stationing caravans — Inspector recommending limited permission — Secretary of State refusing permission — Applicants having no remedy under planning law — Whether remedy by way of judical review — Leave refused at first instance and upheld on appeal
The proceedings concerned possession of the former Beechen Cliff Lower School, Wells Road, Bath. Avon County Council were the owners of the site. It lay within the designated Bath Conservation Area and Bath (City) District Council were the local planning authority. The applicants for leave to apply for judicial review were travellers, who had set up caravans in 1991 on land which was no longer being used for its original purpose. Avon had the statutory responsibility for providing sites in their area for gypsies. Their travellers’ subcommittee made a decision in November 1993 to bring possession proceedings against the applicants. A public inquiry was held and the inspector recommended limited planning permission to be granted. However, that was followed by a decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment of February 18 1994 in which he dismissed a number of appeals including one by Avon against an enforcement notice issued by Bath relating to use of the site for the stationing of mobile homes. The effect of that decision was that the enforcement notice was effectively upheld so that if it was not quashed, then Avon would have no choice but to comply with it.
On application for leave to move for judicial review before the High Court, it was argued, inter alia, that the Secretary of State had failed to take into account the nature of Avon’s duties under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and that the applicants, who were not persons “having an interest in land” under section 174(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and also were not “relevant occupiers” under section 174(6), could not bring proceedings for appeal under the Act. Therefore, their only potential remedy was by way of judicial review. The applicants also argued that the planning permission ought to have been granted on purely planning grounds and that the decision of the Secretary of State was unreasonable. The application was refused and a further application was made to the Court of Appeal.
Held The application was refused.
1. The court did not find it necessary to pursue whether, on the jurisdictional point, the judge in the court below was correct or whether the applicants’ argument was correct. The judge had stated that the under the provisions of section 285 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the validity of enforcement notice could not, except by way of appeal, be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever. However, in the present instance the court did not have to decide that if the applicants could not proceed by way of appeal under the Act, there had to be some remedy open to them.
2. The Secretary of State’s decision letter had given planning reasons as to why he did not accept his inspector’s conclusions. There was no need for a standard letter so that every one of the inspectors’ points is listed and then ticked off. It was clear that he had considered the inspector’s reasoning, but that he differed from it. The proper balancing exercise had been carried out.
Philip Engelman QC and Paul Epstein (instructed by Bindman & Partners, London agents for Bobbets Mackan, of Bristol) appeared for the applicants; Clive Lewis (instructed by the solicitor to Avon County Council) appeared on behalf of the council; the Secretary of State for the Environment did not appear and was not represented.
