Williams, R (on the application of) v First Secretary Of State & Anor

In assessing very special circumstances for inappropriate development in the Green Belt, an inspector may give substantial weight to the absence of alternative sites while recognising the likely disruption to education and healthcare caused by relocation. The inspector must read the family’s circumstances as a whole and is entitled to weigh temporary or potentially cumulative disruption against the availability of comparable services elsewhere. A later quashing of a development-plan policy does not invalidate the decision where the inspector did not rely on that policy as justification for refusing permission. The court’s role is to review the legality and rationality of the balancing exercise, not to substitute its own assessment of weight.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s dismissal of her appeal against refusal of retrospective planning permission for a gypsy caravan site and access road in the Green Belt.

The inspector accepted an unmet need for settled gypsy accommodation, the possibility that the family would have to use unauthorised or roadside accommodation, and the potential disruption to the children’s education and the family’s healthcare. He nevertheless concluded that these matters did not amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the cumulative harm. He also rejected an Article 8 challenge. The claimant further argued that the inspector had wrongly relied on Policy 37, which was subsequently quashed in Butler v Arthur North East Somerset District Council & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1614.

1. Application dismissed. The inspector had lawfully carried out the balancing exercises required by Green Belt policy and Article 8.
2. The inspector did not equate an itinerant lifestyle with an ordinary move between settled homes. Read in context, his references to moves within the wider community recognised that relocation would inevitably cause disruption, while permitting him to consider the availability of education and healthcare facilities elsewhere and the likely duration and cumulative effect of disruption.
3. The inspector was entitled to attach important weight to the absence of available alternative sites. He also properly considered the family’s need for a site, the children’s education, and the family’s health, including the possibility that relocation could disrupt medical treatment and exacerbate health problems. His conclusion that these benefits did not outweigh the identified harm was not challenged as Wednesbury unreasonable.
4. The subsequent quashing of Policy 37 in Butler v Arthur North East Somerset District Council & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1614 did not invalidate the inspector’s decision. The inspector had accurately summarised the policy, but had not relied on it to justify refusing permission or to conclude that the shortfall in sites would be resolved. The Green Belt conclusion was independently supported by Circular 1/94, and Policy 37 was not included among the policies with which the proposal conflicted.
5. The claim was refused. Subject to production of the relevant certificate within seven days, the claimant was to have Community Legal Services taxation.