South Gloucestershire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (First Defendant) AZ (Second Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Singh |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 4555 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/3755/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 25 November 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 4555 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Singh
CO/3755/2014
Miss S Ornsby QC ( Miss Hall appeared for judgment only)(instructed by the Legal Department of the South Gloucestershire Council) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Stephen Whale ( Miss Blackmore appeared for the judgment only) (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
The Second Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Introduction
This is an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash a decision made by a Planning Inspector, dated 1 July 2014. The initial grounds of challenge have been amended initially without objection. They were further amended during the course of the hearing before this court. I granted permission to make that further amendment and will set out my reasons for doing so at the relevant juncture in this judgment.
By his decision the Inspector allowed an appeal under section 78 of the 1990 Act against the deemed refusal of planning permission for development at Sloes Well Paddock, Westerleigh Road, Pucklechurch, South Gloucestershire. In allowing the appeal the Inspector granted planning permission for the use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes, together with the formation of hardstanding and utility building ancillary to that use. The application for planning permission was originally made on 13 October 2009. On 5 August 2010, the claimant, which is the local planning authority, resolved that if it had been in a position to determine the application it would have refused it. The resolution by the claimant's Development Control ( East) Committee set out the reasons, which in essence turned on the fact that the proposed development was inappropriate development in the Bristol/Bath Green Belt.
An appeal was initially dismissed on 19 November 2010, but that decision was quashed by the High Court in a decision given by HHJ Thornton QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court. In those proceedings an anonymity order was made to protect the identity of the second defendant, who is known as AZ. AZ did not appear at, nor was he represented at, the hearing before me on this occasion.
Before the Inspector, this time round, an inquiry was held over 4 days initially on 17 and 18 September 2013, then on 16 October 2013. The inquiry was closed on that date. However, it was reopened and sat again on 1 April 2014. The reasons why it was reopened were explained by the Inspector at paragraphs 6 to 7 of his decision. He explained that on 11 December 2013 the Council formally adopted its Core Strategy (CS). He also explained that on 6 March 2014 the Government published the on-line Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Of particular relevance to this appeal was the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment chapter. The Inspector stated:
"Both the adoption of the CS and the PPG are highly relevant to the determination of this appeal and so the Inquiry was re-opened for a single day on 1 April 2014."
Factual background
The factual background can be taken from the Inspector's decision at paragraphs 9 to 15. It is unnecessary for present purposes to set out that passage in detail. The site, with which this case is concerned, has an area of about 0.1 hectares and forms a relatively small part of substantially larger landholding (about 1 hectare) located in the countryside between Pucklechurch and the M4 motorway. The site adjoins agricultural land on all sides, apart from its short road frontage to a slip road off Westerleigh Road. There has been unauthorised development on the site. As a result of the planning permission which has been granted, the unauthorised development would be removed and a new development would be sited to the south- east of the present structures. The site would be occupied by AZ, his wife and son.
As the Inspector noted at paragraph 13 of his decision, the planning history of the wider landholding is pertinent to the case. The land was purchased by the appellant's wife in late 2005 and shortly afterwards AZ moved a mobile home on to it. A planning application was submitted in April 2006 for the siting of two caravans for a Gypsy family, that being a reference to AZ, his wife and son. That application was refused in late September 2006. In the meantime the Council had served two stop notices in July and August 2006. Subsequently two Enforcement Notices were issued in August 2006 and two further Enforcement Notices were issued in September 2006.
Appeals against those Enforcement Notices were dismissed. Although the period for compliance with those Enforcement Notices was extended for 6 months. That period ended on 11 January 2008. There was subsequently prosecution of AZ. It would appear that he pleaded guilty at the Crown Court and was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.
The Decision under Challenge
It is unnecessary, for present purposes, to set out in detail passages in the Inspector's decision save for one material passage, to which I will turn. However, it is important to note the overall structure of that decision to place the issue, which has arisen in this court, within its proper context. At paragraphs 16 to 18 of his decision the Inspector considered the effect of the proposed development on the Green Belt. There was no dispute that the proposals did constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Furthermore, as is well-known, inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and substantial weight is to be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Further, the Inspector noted that there was no doubt that the proposals would result in some loss of openness of this part of the Green Belt. At paragraph 18 of his decision he concluded on this point that there was a significant amount of harm which carried substantial weight against the development.
At paragraphs 19 to 25 in his decision the Inspector turned to consider the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. He observed at paragraph 20 that the proposals would be out of keeping with the established character of the area. The provision of a dwelling with ancillary development and paraphernalia will introduce a discordant feature into the countryside, harmful to its character and contrary to relevant policy in the local plan. At paragraph 22 he observed that the development would appear as a now isolated home in the countryside. At paragraph 24 he concluded that overall, provided all the existing unauthorised development was removed, there would be only very limited harm to the appearance of the area. Nevertheless there was some harm, as he accepted. At paragraph 25 he concluded on this point that the identified harm needs to be balanced with the other material considerations advanced in support of the proposals.
At paragraph 26 the Inspector turned to begin to consider the other material considerations in the appeal. He noted in that paragraph that there were four, in particular, which needed to be addressed: they were the personal circumstances of the appellant and his family, the lack of suitable alternative sites, the five-year housing land supply and human rights issues. The Inspector then proceeded to address each of those four material considerations in turn.
At paragraphs 27 to 32 of his decision he considered the personal circumstances of AZ and his family, which he regarded as being of great weight. He took into account, for example, undisputed medical evidence from a consultant, Dr Reeves.
At the end of this part of his decision in paragraph 32, the Inspector concluded that these personal circumstances of the appellant and his family carried very significant weight in favour of the appellant. At paragraph 33 of his decision the Inspector addressed the question of alternative sites. He observed that the Council had not identified any alternative accommodation that would be suitable for the exceptional needs of AZ and his family. He described those needs as being "specific and out of the ordinary". On this point he concluded that this carried weight in favour of the appellant.
At paragraphs 34 to 35 the Inspector addressed the question of housing land supply. Since this passage is at the heart of the present case it is necessary to set it out in full:
"The CS identifies that the Council has a five-year housing land supply. The CS is a very recent document that was adopted in December 2013. The Council, however, is in an unfortunate position in that the PPG was issued soon after the adoption of the CS. Advice in the PPG (paragraph 4 of section 3-035-20140306 in the Housing and economic land availability assessment chapter) is that authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first five years of the plan period where possible; where it is not possible authorities will need to work with neighbouring authorities under the duty to cooperate. The figures in the CS are based upon dealing with past undersupply over the whole plan period. If the undersupply has to be provided within the first five years, and the Council did not argue that this is not possible, it currently has an undersupply of housing land. The first paragraph of section 3-030-20140306 of the PPG...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v South Gloucestershire Council and Another
...DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PLANNING COURT MR JUSTICE SINGH [2014] EWHC 4555 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Lindblom and Lord Justice David Richards Case No: C1/2014/4049 Between: Secre......