Basildon District Council, R (on the application of) v Temple

For the purposes of the Green Belt test in PPG2, circumstances do not each have to be very special when considered separately. Several ordinary factors may combine to constitute very special circumstances. The decision-maker must assess the factors in the round and decide whether, taken together, they clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriate development and any other harm. The weight given to the factors is a matter of planning judgment. The assessment remains fact-sensitive: a combination sufficient for a relatively limited development may not justify a more harmful proposal. Where alternative accommodation is uncertain, the decision-maker may rely on the realistic consequences of dismissal, including disruption to family life and education.

The claimant local planning authority applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision granting retrospective permission for a single-family gypsy caravan site in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Permission had been refused on Green Belt and other grounds.

The challenge alleged that the inspector had misunderstood the requirement for very special circumstances and had reached an irrational or inadequately reasoned conclusion about alternative accommodation, including conventional housing and provision for the family’s horses.

1. The application was dismissed. The inspector had applied the correct Green Belt test and was entitled to grant permission.
2. The claimant’s submission that each individual factor had to be very special was rejected. A number of factors ordinary in isolation may combine to create very special circumstances. The proper approach is to consider all relevant factors in the round, with the weight given to each being a matter of planning judgment. This explained the distinction between Chelmsford Borough Council v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 2978 (Admin) and Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWHC 808 (Admin), where only one allegedly special factor was relied upon.
3. The relevant question was not merely whether very special circumstances existed, but whether they clearly outweighed the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. The weight required would vary with the planning harm caused by the particular site. The inspector was therefore entitled to treat the combination of gypsy-site need, shortage of suitable local sites, lack of an accessible alternative, and likely hardship and educational disruption as sufficient in this case.
4. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the family would initially seek an itinerant lifestyle, that this was not a sustainable short-term option, and that it was uncertain whether they could adapt to conventional housing. The family had never lived in a bricks-and-mortar home, and the evidence supported the inspector’s assessment.
5. The inspector was also entitled, using common sense, to conclude that council accommodation would probably prevent the family from continuing to keep horses. Summer grazing was materially different from winter stabling. The issue had not been presented as a major evidential dispute requiring detailed treatment.

The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £3,820. There was no order as to the interested party’s costs.

Not stated in the judgment.