South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

The Court of Appeal allowed the council's appeal and quashed the Inspector's decision granting planning permission for retention of a mobile home in the Green Belt. The court applied section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and national guidance in PPG 2 and Circular 1/94, emphasising that the presumption in favour of the development plan can be displaced only where "very special circumstances" clearly outweigh the harm of inappropriate development. The court held that the Inspector failed to address a material consideration — the persistent unlawfulness of the occupation — and provided insufficient analysis to justify overriding development plan and Green Belt policies. The decision in Chapman v United Kingdom and related authorities requires that the lawfulness of occupation, the personal circumstances of the occupier and potential discrimination issues be given careful, clear and cogent treatment when balancing individual needs against community environmental rights.

This appeal arose from an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by South Bucks District Council seeking to quash a Secretary of State decision of 19 February 2002 allowing an appeal (inspector's decision of 5 September 2000) that granted permission to retain a residential mobile home at Willow Tree Farm in the Green Belt for the lifetime of Mrs Linda Porter. The Local Plan (including policy H14), PPG 2 (Green Belts) and Circular 1/94 (Gypsy Sites) were central to the dispute.

Procedural posture:

• The council challenged the Inspector's decision in the Administrative Court; His Honour Judge Rich QC dismissed the council's application on 17 September 2002. The council appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Nature of claim and relief sought:

• Application under section 288 to quash the Secretary of State's decision to allow the appeal and grant permission subject to personal and landscaping conditions.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Inspector correctly applied the development plan presumption under section 54A and PPG 2;
• whether the Inspector failed to take into account material considerations including the unlawful nature of the occupation;
• whether the Inspector adequately addressed the precedent argument;
• the relevance of the appellant's gypsy status and the impact of Article 8 jurisprudence in Chapman v United Kingdom on the assessment of personal circumstances.

Court's reasoning and decision:

• The court accepted that national and development plan policies carried substantial weight, but that decision-makers retain a judgment function to weigh material considerations against the plan. Chapman requires attention to the lawfulness of occupation, the suitability of alternative accommodation and potential discrimination issues when Article 8 considerations arise.
• The Inspector had found very special circumstances based on personal hardship, lack of alternative pitches and ill health, and imposed a personal condition. However, the Court of Appeal concluded the Inspector's reasoning was insufficiently detailed and notably omitted consideration of the persistent unlawful occupation, a matter material to the planning balance. The court observed that reliance merely on a catalogue of hardships without broader planning analysis risks devaluing the concept of "very special circumstances".
• For these reasons the appeal was allowed and the Inspector's decision quashed; the court emphasised the need for clear, cogent and comprehensive reasoning when an Inspector proposes to override Green Belt and development plan policies.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal quashed the Inspector's grant of planning permission because the Inspector failed to take into account a material consideration (the persistent unlawful nature of the occupation) and did not provide sufficiently clear and cogent analysis to justify overriding development plan and Green Belt policies. The court applied the statutory presumption in section 54A and relevant national guidance, and held that Chapman v United Kingdom required careful treatment of lawfulness, individual needs and potential discrimination in the planning balance.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (His Honour Judge Rich QC). The judge below dismissed the Council's application under section 288 to quash the Secretary of State's decision (judgment given 17 September 2002); the council's appeal was allowed by this Court of Appeal judgment of 19 May 2003.