Basildon District Registry v First Secretary Of State & Ors

For planning purposes, gypsy status under section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 depends on whether the applicant has a nomadic habit of life at the date of the planning decision. The question is functional and one of fact and degree. A permanent base, or temporary restrictions on travel caused by illness or children’s education, does not necessarily end that status. Permanent retirement from travelling does, although status may later be recovered if circumstances and intention change. A reviewing court must not turn a limited planning appeal into a rehearing of disputed facts. An inspector’s reasons are read as a whole and are sufficient if they identify the relevant issues and do not create substantial doubt that the decision was lawfully reached.

The First Secretary of State granted Rachel and Elizabeth Cooper planning permission for gypsy caravan sites. Basildon District Council challenged the decisions under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Sir Richard Tucker dismissed the Council’s application in the Administrative Court.

The Council appealed, alleging error of law, inadequate reasons and failure to consider relevant matters. It argued that the inspector had not properly considered whether the respondents had abandoned their nomadic way of life, particularly in light of Wrexham County Borough Council v The National Assembly for Wales [2003] EWCA Civ 835. The central issue was whether the inspector had adequately assessed gypsy status and future intentions.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Rix gave the principal judgment; Lord Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Forbes agreed.
2. Governing test. The relevant question under section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was whether each respondent had a nomadic habit of life at the date of the planning decision. Following Wrexham County Borough Council v The National Assembly for Wales [2003] EWCA Civ 835, this was a functional question of fact and degree. A permanent base did not necessarily defeat status. Temporary cessation or restriction of travel because of illness or children’s education might not do so, depending on the reasons and the past and projected duration. Permanent retirement from travelling would end the status, subject to possible later recovery if circumstances and intention changed.
3. Scope of review. The Council’s three grounds substantially raised one complaint that the inspector had gone wrong in applying that test. No perversity challenge was advanced. In the absence of perversity, or evidence needed to establish that a consideration had been wholly omitted, it was inappropriate on a limited appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to place before the court one party’s account of disputed inquiry evidence and seek a rehearing.
4. Reasons. The decision letter, incorporating the inspector’s report, had to be read as a whole and flexibly, not as a contract. Applying Save Britain’s Heritage v No.1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 153, the reasons had to be proper, intelligible and adequate, but any lacuna had to raise substantial doubt that the decision was based on relevant grounds and was otherwise legally sound.
5. Application. The inspector’s report recorded the competing cases on abandonment of nomadic status. His findings that health and educational needs restricted present travel, together with the finding of continuing travel to gypsy events, implicitly accepted that the respondents wished to travel when the present restrictions ceased. Those brief findings were adequate and showed that the relevant evidence and submissions had been considered. No error of law, inadequacy of reasons or failure to consider relevant matters was established. Further orders were suspended for seven days.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Unanimously dismissed Basildon District Council’s appeal.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Sir Richard Tucker dismissed the Council’s section 288 application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.