Coyle, R (on the application of) v Kingston Upon Thames

Material changes of use in the Green Belt are inappropriate development where they fail to maintain openness or conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Gypsy housing needs and shortcomings in local planning policies may amount to material considerations, but they do not make Green Belt development acceptable automatically. The decisive question remains whether the harm is clearly outweighed by very special circumstances. A planning inspector’s wording need not be perfect if, read by an informed participant, the correct legal approach and reasons are clear. A policy’s failure to comply fully with national guidance does not itself justify permission where the particular development would cause substantial and unacceptable Green Belt harm.

The claimant appealed against a planning inspector’s dismissal of his appeal concerning the refusal of permission for a change of use to residential and the stationing of three caravans and portaloos for Gypsy families on land in Chessington. The site was in the Green Belt and had previously been used as an unauthorised commercial storage yard. The claimant argued that the inspector had failed to address the absence of suitable Gypsy sites, the alleged non-compliance of the local plan with Circular 1/94, and the families’ need for accommodation. The central issue was whether the inspector had applied the correct Green Belt test and lawfully assessed whether very special circumstances justified the development.

1. Appeal dismissed. The inspector’s decision was lawful and the claimant’s appeal was dismissed with costs payable to the first respondent, assessed at £3,250.
2. The proposed change of use was inappropriate development under paragraph 3.12 of PPG2. The material change of use did not maintain the openness of the Green Belt and conflicted with its purposes. The inspector’s findings that the development would urbanise the area, harm openness, extend urban sprawl and fail to safeguard the countryside provided an inevitable basis for that conclusion.
3. The inspector’s reference to the specified purposes of Green Belt policy was not a misdirection. Although the wording was unclear, an informed participant would understand it as referring to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, rather than treating the proposal as an application for the construction of new buildings.
4. Circular 1/94 required development plans, where suitable locations could not be identified, to set out clear and realistic criteria for Gypsy sites. The local plan was not wholly compliant because it did not adequately cater for reasonably foreseeable future needs. That deficiency was a material consideration, and the inspector was required to consider the individual and wider need for Gypsy accommodation.
5. Nevertheless, Circular 1/94 withdrew earlier guidance suggesting that Gypsy sites might need to be accepted in protected areas and stated that such sites were not normally appropriate in Green Belts. The reference to “normally” did not convert the proposal into appropriate development. It recognised only that exceptional circumstances might justify permission where there was no other means of meeting Gypsy site needs.
6. The inspector had considered the relevant needs and the planning objections. The evidence did not establish sufficiently strong local links or needs, while the Green Belt harm was firmly found to be unacceptable. There was no proper basis for concluding that a compliant local plan would have made this development permissible.

• Planning inspector: On 6 November 2002, dismissed the claimant’s appeal against Kingston upon Thames Royal Borough’s refusal of planning permission.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal against the inspector’s decision and awarded the first respondent costs of £3,250.