The First Secretary of State & Anor v Simmons

Inappropriate development in the Green Belt requires very special circumstances. The applicant must show that the harm caused by inappropriateness, together with any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The absence of alternative gypsy sites is relevant only after a sufficiently compelling need for a site in the area has been established. Even then, the absence of alternatives does not compel planning permission. Article 8 does not confer a right to a home in a particular location or prevent national authorities from giving decisive weight to Green Belt policy.

The Secretary of State upheld an enforcement notice concerning the use of land in the Metropolitan Green Belt as a private gypsy caravan site. Although an inspector recommended granting planning permission, the Secretary of State found that the unmet need for gypsy sites, the family’s personal circumstances and the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation did not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the landscape.

Newman J quashed the decision on 2 March 2005. He considered that the Secretary of State might have rejected the evidence about unavailable alternative sites because the respondent had not adequately searched for another site, without considering all the evidence or explaining the weight attached to that matter.

The central issues were whether the decision letter disclosed a lawful planning balance and whether the availability of alternative sites could require permission for inappropriate Green Belt development.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Reading the decision letter as a whole, the Secretary of State had lawfully concluded that very special circumstances did not clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the additional landscape harm. The material considerations were sufficiently identified and the planning judgment was justified.

2. Per Pill LJ, the wording concerning the respondent’s failure to search for other sites was confused and unsatisfactory. Consultation with the local authority was unlikely to have assisted, and parts of the reasoning did not logically follow. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State was entitled to find that the respondent had not done all he might have done to seek a site that was less objectionable in planning terms. That failure could make it more difficult to discharge the applicant’s burden of establishing very special circumstances.

3. The balance described in the decision letter included the unmet need for gypsy sites, the difficulty of obtaining alternative accommodation, the family’s educational and personal circumstances, the development’s visibility, the loss of openness and the harm to the area’s character. The Secretary of State had not overlooked the evidence merely because he gave it insufficient weight to justify permission.

4. Per Carnwath LJ, the availability of alternative sites in an area becomes logically relevant only after the applicant establishes special circumstances requiring a site there. Even a strong personal need combined with the absence of viable alternatives does not oblige the decision-maker to override Green Belt policy.

5. European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 does not confer a right to be provided with a home, whether generally or in a particular location. National authorities remain entitled to determine the weight given to restrictive planning policies. Authorities concerning compelling personal circumstances or land outside the Green Belt did not establish that the absence of alternatives was itself sufficient to override Green Belt protection.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed unanimously. The Secretary of State’s planning decision was upheld: [2005] EWCA Civ 1295.
2. Administrative Court: Newman J, by judgment dated 2 March 2005, quashed the Secretary of State’s decision and remitted it for reconsideration. No citation is stated in the judgment.
3. Secretary of State: On 2 July 2004, the Secretary of State upheld the enforcement notice as varied and refused planning permission, contrary to the inspector’s recommendation.