Development — Enforcement notice — Stationing of caravans — Applicant and family categorised as gypsies — Whether “exceptional circumstance” overriding presumption against development — Whether failure to apply Government policy — Whether need for private gypsy site — Inspector’s decision upholding enforcement notice affirmed
Planning permission had been sought for a change of use of land to a private gypsy caravan site for two mobile homes on land at the Bungalow, 36 Sutton Lane, Colnbrook, Buckinghamshire. The appeal site was on the western edge of green belt land, separating the built-up area of Slough from the urban mass of Greater London. An enforcement notice was issued by the local planning authority, South Bucks District Council, and an appeal was made to the Secretary of State for the Environment. His inspector, having concluded that the applicant and his family were gypsies, stated that the main issue on appeal was whether retention of the mobile homes and touring caravan to meet their special needs could be treated as an exception to the general presumption against inappropriate development in the metropolitan green belt. He stated that there was insufficient justification for a breach in the inner edge of the restricted green belt between Slough and Greater London. The applicant appealed to the High Court against the enforcement notice and stated that the decision should be quashed on the ground, inter alia, that the inspector failed to balance the extent to which the use in question might harm the interests of the green belt against the extent of the advantage to be derived from it: see R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Tesco Food Stores Ltd [1991] EGCS 93. He was also stated to have failed to apply Government advice contained in Circulars 28/77 and 57/78 concerning the need for private gypsy sites to supplement local authority provision.
Held The application was refused.
1. The inspector had fully considered the questions raised on appeal concerning appropriate development in the green belt.
2. He had carried out the correct balancing exercise and was entitled to find that the circumstances needed to be particularly compelling for inappropriate development to be acceptable on a sensitive site.
3. He had correctly understood the policy in the circulars, which were not misinterpreted. There was no inadequacy of reasons and no error in law and the appeal against his decision was misconceived.
John Bates (instructed by Clinton Davis Cushings & Kelly) appeared for the applicant; and Rhodri Price Lewis (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; South Bucks District Council did not appear and were not represented.
