R (Doran) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Carnwath,Lord Justice Jacob |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 1525 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2010/1679 |
| Date | 07 December 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 1525
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Cranston)
Before: Lord Justice Carnwath
and
Lord Justice Jacob
Case No: C1/2010/1679
Mr Marc Willers (instructed by Messrs Pierce Glynn) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
(As Approved)
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Carnwath:
This is an application for permission to appeal against a decision of Cranston J, who refused an application to quash a decision of the Inspector in a planning case. Mr Willers and his instructing solicitors appear pro bono in this court and we are very grateful for their assistance.
The issue is the all too familiar one of where to accommodate a gypsy family. The particular site in question is near Leighton Buzzard in what is now the area of the Central Bedfordshire Council. It is one of three sites known as A, B and C, which have quite a planning history between them. The site is within the Green Belt, as is most of the relevant part of central Bedfordshire. The three sites A, B and C were subject to a planning decision in 2005 when permission was refused, although the inspector had made a recommendation in favour. The particular site C was subject to a decision by the Secretary of State on 19 June 2009, which was between the inquiry in our case and the Inspector's decision. There the Secretary of State refused permission.
The only live issue of any substance, as it seems to me, is the inspector's treatment of the question of temporary permission. Under the relevant circular of the Secretary of State which establishes the policy relating to planning cases, circular 01/06, paragraph 45 and 46 deal with the possibility of temporary permission. They say that where there is an unmet need and no available alternative provision but:
“…there is a reasonable expectation that new sites are likely to become available at the end of that period in the area which will meet that need…”
the local authority should consider granting a temporary permission. Then it goes on to say:
“Such circumstances may arise, for example, in a case where a local planning authority is preparing its site allocations DPD. In such circumstances, local planning authorities are expected to give substantial weight to the unmet need in considering whether a temporary planning permission is justified.”
That was an important relaxation of the ordinary rigour of the Green Belt policies in recognition of the difficulty of providing sites to meet this particular need, at least where there was a reasonable prospect of an alternative being provided in the near future.
The inspector dealt with this issue in what is generally a very careful and closely reasoned decision letter. He set out all the relevant planning considerations including the Green Belt policy and the evidence relating to need and the circumstances of these particular families..
At paragraph 59 he turned to the question of a limited planning permission. He referred to the circular, which he quoted as dealing:
“…with situations where there is an unmet need and no available site provision but where, at the end of a period, there is a reasonable expectation that sites will become available through the DPD process.”
At paragraph 60 he continued:
“In this case, there is an agreed unmet need for sites, although the Council argues that this may be met, in whole or in part, by the granting of planning permissions during the emergence of the DPD. Despite the lack of clarity regarding the DPD position at the end of any temporary period, the unmet need for sites and...
To continue reading
Request your trial