R (Doran) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE CRANSTON |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 1957 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 21 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | CO/9716/2009 |
[2010] EWHC 1957 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: MR JUSTICE CRANSTON
CO/9716/2009
Mr Marc Willers (instructed by Pierce Glynn) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Stephen Whale (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
Miss Saira Kabir Sheikh (instructed by Legal Department, Central Bedfordshire District Council) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant
Introduction
Mr Doran seeks to challenge the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant, the Secretary of State. The inspector dismissed Mr Doran's appeal against a refusal of planning permission for a change of use of land from agricultural use, to enable it to station static and touring traveller caravans. Mr Doran's appeal was against the decision of the former South Bedfordshire District Council, which now forms part of the defendant authority, a new unitary local authority, Central Bedfordshire Council (“the council”).
Mr Doran and his family are travellers and have gypsy and traveller status. It was accepted before the inspector that they have habitually travelled for work and that none has ever lived in bricks and mortar. Before the inspector it became clarified that the planning application was in relation to three static and three touring caravans to accommodate three family groups.
Background to the council's refusal
On 19 November 2007 Mr Doran applied for retrospective planning permission for the change of use of land known as Block 7, Site B, The Stables, Stanbridge Road, Great Billington, Nr Leighton Buzzard. The site is located around two kilometres to the south east of Leighton Buzzard. It is some 500 metres east of the village of Great Billington and comprises an L-shaped parcel of land, which includes an access off the north side of Stanbridge Road with a main area set back from the road frontage. The site is located within a larger area of land —which is generally in use as a gypsy and traveller site —that has been divided into three separate areas referred to as sites A, B and C which have different planning histories.
The site for which Mr Doran made the planning application is site B. The whole of this area —sites A, B and C —was once part of an agricultural holding. In May 2005 the Secretary of State dismissed an appeal for use of the whole of that area as a gypsy and traveller site. Planning permission was refused in relation to plots on site C in June 2009. In the course of the Secretary of State's decision on that part of site C, the Secretary of State considered in particular whether temporary permission ought to be granted. He considered the appellants’ case that there was no available, suitable, affordable, alternative site and that if permission were to be refused the appellants and their families would be back on the road. In particular he considered paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Circular (to which I refer later in this judgment) and the likelihood that a site allocations Development Plan Document would be completed by 2012.
In considering the question of temporary permission, the Secreatry of State attributed substantial weight to the appellants’ need for a site and to the time it had taken before a site allocation Development Plan Document was completed. However, the Secretary of State concluded that the Green Belt harm which the proposal would cause if planning permission were granted for a temporary period would not clearly be outweighed by these other considerations.
To the east of sites A, B and C there is Mead Open Farm, which is a paying-visitor attraction. To the west of sites A, B and C there is a calf-rearing enterprise. On the opposite side of the road there is a commercial and transport-related business, which includes substantial buildings. Adjacent to that commercial site is a lawful site for gypsies and travellers which was allowed, on appeal, in 1994 and extended in 2008. Beyond that there is a further lawful gypsy site allowed, on appeal, for a temporary period in 2008.
After Mr Doran submitted his planning application in late 2007, the council sent a document entitled Site/Occupancy Circumstances Questionnaire (“the questionnaire”). Mr Doran completed that questionnaire in early 2008 and returned it to the council. The questionnaire asked for the names and addresses of previous schools and nurseries attended by any of Mr Doran's named children. Three entries were made. The following question asked for details of special educational needs of any of Mr Doran's children. There was mention of those special educational needs, to which I will return.
Question 9 was, “Why did you decide to occupy this site?”
to which the answer, on Mr Doran's behalf, was that the family had come there because it could not find any other plots to rent or to buy and because the family had relatives in the area. Also there was a school in Leighton Buzzard which had a special speech and language unit which, it was hoped, the elder son Miles could join in September. Question 10 asked where the family had been living immediately prior to taking up occupation on site. The answer was, “The South Mimms Transit Site”. It was noted that occupancy of that site was only available for a limited time. In addition, there followed this comment:
“It had no address or mail box so the local GP refused to register us and we had no GP to refer Miles for speech therapy.”
Question 11 was answered by reference to the areas where the family had been over the previous four years. From October 2004 to 2006 the family was at Didcot at their own yard, but that was left because of a refusal of planning consent. From April to July 2007 the family had stayed at a friend's yard at Aldermaston. Then from September 2007 to January 2008 the family had remained at the South Mimms Transit Site.
Question 12 asked whether the family had applied to reside at any council or public-owned site. The answer was yes, and addresses were given. Question 15 asked whether inquiries had been made about an alternative site, to which the answer was yes and details given were that Mr Doran had asked Gladwish Land Sales in Horsham to find some land. Three sites had been found but each time the local authority had warned him that planning permission would not be granted. Mr Doran had asked travellers he had seen if they knew of any vacancies and details of that were given. Question 17 asked where, if the family was required to vacate the site, they would locate:
“We have nowhere else to go and would have to live again on unauthorised sites. Been evicted too often for schooling and difficulties in accessing NHS care needed for speech therapy.”
Question 23 asked for medical conditions. The medical problems with Mr Doran's two sons were referred to, the problems with the two boys’ hips. In the following question three hospitals were identified as providing medical assistance: Nuffield Hospital in Oxford, a consultant at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury and assistance at the Whitton General Hospital in High Wycombe (in relation to speech therapy).
At the end of [the] questionnaire there was a summary of Mr Doran's needs, that he desperately needed planning consent so that his three children would still be able to go to school, a reference to the speech difficulties of Miles, a reiteration of the problem that both boys had with their hips and the difficulty of accessing the NHS without a postal address:
“We have tried very hard but in vain to buy or rent a site and this area is our first choice as the people are friendly and we have relatives in the area. We have no money to buy another.”
Before the council, when it was considering the planning application, and also before the inspector, was a letter from Cathy Watson, a speech and language therapist, setting out Miles’ condition. In that letter Miss Watson explained that Miles had been assessed by the Bedfordshire Speech and Language Therapist Service. He presented with a severely disordered speech sound system and delayed language skills. That disorder impacted severely on his intelligibility. He required regular intervention and due to the severity of his condition that was likely to be necessary on a long-term basis. At the time he was attending a clinic on a weekly basis and that should continue if he were to benefit from the intervention. It was important that he attended play school regularly. Miss Watson noted that he had begun attending Heathwood Lower School in Leighton Buzzard, a school which had a lot of experience dealing with children's speech and language problems. If the family moved from Bedfordshire and were no longer registered with a Bedfordshire GP, then Miles would no longer access this service. The report by Cathy Watson was supported by an additional letter from an educational psychologist, Alison Cupper.
South Bedfordshire District Council refused planning permission on 23 April 2008.
Appeal before the inspector
There was then an appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal to grant planning permission. Mr Doran's appeal was conducted on his behalf by Ann Dean, a member of the National Romany Rights Association. On her own admission Mrs Dean had no real experience in conducting planning appeals. She prepared an appeal document.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R (Doran) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
-
Olazewski v Circuit Court in Katowice and Regional Court in Bialystok Poland
...industrial accident. 22 Finally, Miss Kopel in this context referred me to the decision of the Divisional Court in the case of Kovac [2010] EWHC 1957 Admin. That, it must be remarked, was a decision on its own particular facts, as indeed all these cases are. But she says that the approach o......