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
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.
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.
Connors & ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG); Mulvenna & Smith v SSCLG  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.
We reported on our website the case of Wenman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government  EWHC 925 (Admin), 21 April 2015:-
R (Jayes) -v- Flintshire CC and Hamilton (interested party)  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- SSCLG  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 – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [SSCLG] & AB  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.
Lee -v- Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Runnymede Borough Council  EWCA Civ 558, 17 June 2016
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning a refusal of planning permission for a Gypsy and Traveller site. Marc Willers of Garden Court Chambers represented the Appellant.
R (Dartford Borough Council) -v- Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG)  EWHC 635 (Admin), 21 January 2016
This application for planning permission for a Gypsy and Traveller site concerned land in the curtilage of a farmhouse. The Planning Inspector granted planning permission.