Winifred Helen Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lang |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 676 (Admin) |
| Date | 25 March 2024 |
| Year | 2024 |
| Counsel | Stephen Cottle,Killian Garvey |
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 676 (Admin)
Case No: CO/466/2022
AC-2022-LON-001196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 25 March 2024
Before :
MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
WINIFRED HELEN WARD Claimant
- and -
(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEVELLING
UP, HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES
(2) BASILDON DISTRICT COUNCIL
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Cottle (instructed by the Public Interest Law Centre) for the Claimant
Killian Garvey (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the First Defendant
The Second Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Hearing date: 7 March 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10 am on 25 March 2024 by circulation to the
parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ward v SSLUHC & Anor
Mrs Justice Lang :
1. The Claimant applies, under section 288 of the Townand Country Planning Act 1990
(“TCPA 1990”), for a statutory review of the decision, made on 30 December 2021,
by an Inspector, appointed by the First Defendant, which dismissed Mr Mark
Cooper’s appeal against the refusal of planning permission by the Second Defendant
(“the Council”) for a material change of use of land in the Green Belt for the
stationing of caravans for residential occupation, on the south side of Carlton Road,
Bowers Gifford, Basildon (“the Site”).
2. The Claimant resides at the Site with Mr Cooper and their three children in one
mobile home and one touring caravan. The Claimant is an Irish Traveller and Mr
Cooper is a Romani Gypsy. Mr Cooper was the applicant for planning permission and
the appellant in the appeal under section 78 TCPA 1990. He has not been joined as a
claimant in this application because he has not been able to obtain legal aid. The
Claimant has been granted legal aid and she is a person aggrieved by the decision,
within the meaning of section 288(1)(a) TCPA 1990 as she is at risk of losing her
home.
3. The Council is the local planning authority.
Grounds of challenge
4. There is a dispute between the parties over the extent of the grant of permission to
apply for statutory review.
5. The grounds of challenge as originally pleaded, when the claim was filed on 8
February 2022, were as follows:
i) Ground 1. The Inspector erred in law when she concluded in paragraph 24 of
the Decision Letter (“DL/24”) that ‘substantial weight’ should be attributed to
both the harm in the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the harm to
the openness of the Green Belt.
ii) Ground 2. The Inspector’s decision not to grant a temporary planning
permission which would be personal to the First Claimant and her family was
disproportionate and irrational.
6. Permission to apply for statutory review was refused on the papers by Johnson J. on
24 June 2022. The Claimant renewed her application for permission on Ground 2
only. Ground 1 was not pursued.
7. The oral renewal hearing took place on 8 November 2022. HH Judge Walden-Smith,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court, refused permission on all grounds. During the
hearing, she allowed Counsel for the Claimant to rely upon new grounds which were
only made orally and not recorded in writing, either before or immediately after the
renewal hearing. They were summarised in paragraph 12 of her judgment, as follows:
“Mr Cottle significantly expanded the extent of his challenge
… that ground to contend that there was a failure to apply the
public sector equality duty; that there was a failure to consider
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Ward v SSLUHC & Anor
an absence of policy for the provision of sites; that some of the
inspector’s decisions were not supported by evidence; and there
was a failure to have regard to the best interests of the
children."
8. Upon an appeal to the Court of Appeal, Lewison LJ granted permission to apply for
statutory review, on 25 January 2023, for the following reasons:
“I do not underestimate the difficult of challenging what, on its
face, appears to be a carefully reasoned balance of the various
factors for and against the grant of planning permission. I do,
however, consider that it is at least arguable that in para [25] of
the DL the inspector in making the transition from “primary
consideration” to “significant weight” (as opposed to
“substantial weight” used elsewhere in the DL made an error of
law. There is also some force in the Appellant’s contention that
the inspector, in addition to balancing the various factors, ought
to have given greater consideration to the question of
proportionality (dealt with simply as a conclusion in one
sentence of para [31] of the DL).”
9. Mr Garvey, Counsel for the First Defendant, contends that the grant of permission
was limited to the two issues specified in the ‘Reasons’ section of Lewison LJ’s order.
10. Mr Cottle, Counsel for the Claimant, submits that, in the Court of Appeal, permission
was sought and granted on the basis of the Grounds of Appeal submitted by him, in
particular:
“3. Having regard to all the circumstances (and particularly the
small scale of the proposed development, the consequential
degree of harm to the Green Belt and the matters which the
Inspector identified should be attributed ‘significant weight’ in
favour of the appeal) the Inspector’s decision not to grant
temporary planning permission made personal to the Claimant
and her family was disproportionate and perverse.
4. Such is the combined weight of the matters relied upon in
support of the appeal, such was the very limited extent of harm
that the Inspector found was caused by the proposal given it is
situated in a settlement, said to be a degree of harm, it was not a
fair reflection of the factors to then go on to conclude that that
harm was so substantial that it was not clearly outweighed. The
substantial weight that must be given to protection of the green
belt was so obviously outweighed it was perverse to decide
otherwise and it was relevant to know what the profound health
need was, that the Inspector was referring to.”
11. In the ‘Permission to appeal skeleton argument’, Mr Cottle stated, at paragraph 17,
that there was only one ground of appeal, namely, the ground set out in paragraph 3 of
the Grounds of Appeal, taken from paragraph 21 of the Statement of Facts and
Ground (in its original form).
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
