Evans v Secretary Of State For The Environment

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, permission should be refused where the proposed legal ground could not affect the outcome, even if correct. Inappropriate development in the Green Belt requires very special circumstances. The harm caused by inappropriateness, together with any other harm, must be clearly outweighed by other considerations. An inspector may recognise accommodation needs and personal difficulties while giving them limited weight where important Green Belt constraints apply. A clear finding that preserving the openness of a prominent and sensitive tract is of overriding importance may defeat the application. The court declined to determine the alleged inconsistency between local planning policy and national guidance because it could not alter the result.

John Evans and his family occupied agricultural land in Wigan as a caravan site. An enforcement notice required cessation of that use. On appeal, a planning inspector rejected the principal challenge but extended the compliance period. Sullivan J gave a decision on 22 June 2001, and Keene LJ refused permission to appeal. The renewed application to the Court of Appeal challenged the relationship between Wigan UDP Policy H2(D) and Circular 1/94, while relying on gypsy accommodation needs and personal circumstances. The central issue was whether those grounds provided a realistic prospect of successfully challenging the inspector’s Green Belt assessment.

1. Disposition. Judge LJ dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal. Bodey J agreed. The detailed assessment of legal aid costs was ordered.
2. Permission threshold. The court declined to express a view on whether Policy H2(D) complied with, or was consistent with, Circular 1/94. Even assuming that the applicant’s submissions on those matters were correct, they would have had no bearing on the inspector’s decision. The appeal would therefore still have been dismissed, so the proposed grounds did not provide a sufficient prospect of success.
3. Green Belt assessment. The inspector treated the caravan site as inappropriate development in the Green Belt under Policy OL2 and the guidance in PPG2. Very special circumstances were required. The harm arising from inappropriateness and any other harm had to be clearly outweighed by other considerations.
4. Weight of competing considerations. The inspector recognised a limited shortfall in gypsy site provision and the personal difficulties faced by the occupants. He was entitled to exercise caution before giving those matters great weight, since personal considerations could undermine the plan-led process of matching supply with demonstrable need where important planning constraints applied. There was insufficient evidence that alternative land causing less planning harm was unavailable.
5. Inspector’s conclusion. The finding that the site had a seriously harmful effect on the openness of a prominent and sensitive tract of Green Belt, and that preservation of that openness was of overriding importance, was measured, explicit and supported by the evidence. The inspector’s judgment could not be faulted in law.

• Administrative Court. Sullivan J gave a decision on 22 June 2001 concerning the inspector’s decision. Keene LJ subsequently refused permission to appeal.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 9 October 2001, the renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. [2001] EWCA Civ 1598