An interesting judgment, Gregory Park Holding Ltd v Hart DC [2022] EWHC 2406 (Admin), is now available. An LPA’s decision to grant planning permission for a change of use of part of land in the countryside to accommodate 2 Gypsy pitches was not unlawful. On the proper interpretation of the local plan (policy H5), applicants had to demonstrate a general need for a proposed site, not that they had a particular need for the site in question. The application for judicial review by an adjoining landowner was dismissed. You can find the judgment here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/2406.html
Definition of Gypsy and Traveller
Lisa Smith -v- The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Others [2021] EWHC 1650 (Admin) 17 June 2021
Between 2006 and 2015, planning policies included within the definition of ‘Gypsies and Travellers’ those who had either temporarily or permanently ceased to travel by reason of health, education or old age. By a revised planning policy issued in August 2015, the Department for Communities and Local Government modified the definition to remove the reference to those who had permanently ceased to travel for such reasons. Lisa Smith, a Romany Gypsy who lives with her extended family in caravans on a private site in Leicestershire, challenged the lawfulness of the 2015 policy following a Planning Inspector refusing her planning appeal because she did not come within the definition. As a result the Planning Inspector concluded that the application by Ms Smith did not benefit from the more permissive planning regime contained in Planning policy for traveller sites.
Mr Justice Pepperall dismissed her appeal. Originally Ms Smith appealed on another ground, aside from the challenge to the alleged unlawfulness of the definition, but she is no longer pursuing that other ground.
Braintree DC v SSHCLG and Nicholls [2021] EWHC 651 (QB)
A Planning Inspector granted Mr Nicholls planning permission for a Travellers’ site. The local authority challenged this decision on the basis that the Inspector had misinterpreted the development plan and had failed to provide sufficient reasons for her decision. Timothy Mould QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) dismissed the appeal. If the local authority’s interpretation of their own policy had been allowed it would have meant that no Gypsy or Traveller site could ever have been given permission in the countryside. Their appeal against the costs award against them was also dismissed. See: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/651.html
Swale Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Maughan [2018] EWHC 3402 (Admin)
The case involved an application for planning permission by Travellers where a temporary permission was granted by a Planning Inspector. The Council took one ground of challenge against this decision on the basis that the Inspector had erred in law in that, when referring to “a substantial shortfall”, he failed to determine the amount of the shortfall in the 5 year supply of Traveller sites.
Guildford BC v Cooper & Brazil
This site is in the Green Belt and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). A previous enforcement notice and planning appeal had been dismissed by the Secretary of State in 2014. Guildford Borough Council (GBC) then declined to determine subsequent planning applications made in 2017 and 2018. So there was nothing in the pipeline in terms of any outstanding application/appeal when the injunction application was heard earlier this year.
Green Belt Planning Appeals
Connors & ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG); Mulvenna & Smith v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 1850, 17 November 2017.
The case of Mulvenna and Smith concerned the discriminatory decision by Eric Pickles, back in 2014 when he was SSCLG, to recover their respective planning appeals for his own determination. Having done so Mr Pickles rejected his Planning Inspector’s recommendation in each case that planning permission be granted and he dismissed both appeals.
Five Year Deliverable Supply of Housing
We reported on our website the case of Wenman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 925 (Admin), 21 April 2015:-
R (Jayes) -v- Flintshire CC
R (Jayes) -v- Flintshire CC and Hamilton (interested party) [2017] EWHC 874 (Admin) 13
Mr Hamilton obtained planning permission for a Gypsy site for a temporary period of not more than 5 years. A neighbouring objector challenged this on several grounds. Before C.M.G. Ockelton (sitting as a deputy high court judge), Mr Jayes was successful on his first ground and the Planning Inspector’s decision was quashed.
Dartford Borough Council -v- The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Dartford Borough Council -v- SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 141, 14 March 2017
The sole issue on this appeal was the meaning of “previously developed land” (often called “Brownfield land”) as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The definition in NPPF reads as follows:-
Doncaster MBC -v- SSCLG & AB
Doncaster MBC – v – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [SSCLG] & AB [2016] EWHC 2876 (Admin), 6 October 2016.
AB was granted planning permission for a Gypsy site in the Green Belt by a Planning Inspector. She had previously had two temporary permissions for the same site. The local authority challenged the decision.