Green-belt land — Siting of gypsy caravans in contravention of planning control — Appeal against enforcement notices — Secretary of state finding no very special circumstances justifying development — Extent to which search for alternative sites a material consideration — Appeal allowed
The respondent and his family were Irish travellers and gypsies within the meaning of section 24(8) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The respondent appealed against an enforcement notice that had been issued by the local planning authority in respect of his use of land as a gypsy caravan site. The land lay within the metropolitan green belt and a special landscape area.
The appellant secretary of state called in the appeal for his own determination. Following a public inquiry, and contrary to his inspector’s recommendation, he dismissed the appeal on the ground that there were not very special circumstances to justify the inappropriate development within the green belt. He accepted that there was a lack of suitable gypsy sites in the area, but he noted that the respondent had shown insufficient clear evidence of an attempt to find an alternative site. The appellant stated that he had balanced the needs of the family and the acknowledged need for more gypsy sites against his own assessment of the effect of the development upon the environment.
The appellant’s decision was subsequently quashed in judicial review proceedings brought by the respondent. The judge noted the inspector’s comment that any land in a built-up area would be beyond the means of most gypsies, and commented that it was hard to see what could have been achieved had the respondent spent weeks attempting to find a site in the area. He held that, in the absence of a conclusion by the appellant as to what such a search would have achieved, no consequence could attach to his assumption that the respondent had failed to conduct a search.
On appeal against that decision, the appellant argued that: (i) it was for the potential developer to establish very special circumstances; (ii) the extent of the applicant’s efforts to obtain a site in a more suitable location was a material consideration; and he had been entitled to make the findings of fact that he had.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The appellant had been entitled to conclude that the criterion of very special circumstances had not been established. He had had in mind both the difficulty of obtaining land for caravan sites and the evidence of need. He had not failed to take account of all the evidence. He had been entitled to find that the lack of evidence of a search weighed against the respondent’s case; an applicant who had not done all that he might have done to seek a site that was more attractive in planning terms might have more difficulty in discharging the burden of showing very special circumstances justifying the grant of permission. The fact that green-belt land was cheaper than development land would rarely contribute to the establishment of very special circumstances.
Philip Sales and Timothy Morshead (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the appellant; Alan Masters (instructed by Bramwell Browne & Odedra) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
