Unauthorised development — Caravan parked as residential development — Special landscape area — Whether protected area — Whether structure plan up to date in light of changes in law in relation to statutory duties to provide accommodation for gypsy sites — Whether failure to accommodate a breach of UK’s treaty obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights — Application to quash inspector’s refusal of planning permission refused
The applicant and his wife were gypsies who sought planning permission for siting one caravan on land at Highfield, Brickworth Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire. That permission was refused. In his decision letter the inspector dealt with the changes in legislation by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which repealed the statutory duty of local authorities to provide accommodation on caravan sites for gypsies residing in their area and the publication of Circular 1/94 — Gypsy Sites and Planning — which sets out that the planning system should recognise the need for accommodation consistent with the nomadic lifestyle of gypsies. However, para 13 of the circular provided that as a rule it would not be appropriate to make provision for sites: “in areas of open land where development is severely restricted including Green Belts and other protected areas”.
The inspector found that in the instant case the site lay within a special landscape area in the local plan and that development would cause it unacceptable harm. He also found that the applicant’s particular family circumstances did not outweigh the identified harm. The applicant contended, inter alia, that the ejusdem generis rule should apply, ie th at when a list was specified in a statute which was followed by general words, those latter words were confined to matters of the same class. Therefore in the present case, the green belt and other protected areas referred to national designation and not local plan designation as a special landscape area. Para 22 of Circular 1/94 required: “As with any other planning applications proposals for gypsy sites should continue to be determined solely in relation to land-use factors”.
Held The application was refused.
1. The construction contended for with regard to the ejusdem generis rule was not accepted. The circular could not have intended that development should only be restricted where there was national designation such as an area of outstanding natural beauty or a site of special scientific interest. The circular made plain that as a general principle sites were not appropriate for development in open land and the rule had been properly given its effect in the inspector’s decision letter.
2. With regard to whether sites were to be identified “solely in relation to land use factors”, there were matters not properly classified as land use factors, such as personal circumstances, material to planning decisions. In the instant case, the inspector had sympathetically and properly examined those circumstances of the applicant and had found they did not outweigh those “land use factors” properly speaking.
3. However, the Secretary of State might consider some amendment to his formulation in Circular 1/94 to avoid misleading those responsible for planning decisions.
4. The rights of an occupant might be interfered with if there was sufficiently strong other interest, eg landscape amenity notwithstanding the UK’s treaty obligations: Buckley v United Kingdom [1995] JPL 633.
Timothy Jones (instructed by Thorpes, of Hereford) appeared for the applicant; Timothy Straker (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; John Litton (instructed by the solicitor to Salisbury District Council) appeared for the second respondent local planning authority.
