Evans, R (on the application of) v The First Secretary of State & Anor

In reviewing a planning inspector’s assessment of very special circumstances in the Green Belt, the court must respect the inspector’s evaluative judgment about the weight to give competing considerations. Article 8 does not make gypsy status, housing difficulties or the availability of alternative pitches determinative. The decision-maker must balance all material circumstances, including the harm to the Green Belt, personal and family considerations, and the evidence concerning alternative accommodation. The court’s role remains supervisory. Even where Convention rights are engaged, proportionality does not convert judicial review into a merits appeal. A conclusion will stand unless the required considerations were omitted or the result is irrational or otherwise unlawful.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a planning inspector’s dismissal of his appeal against refusal of permission for a private gypsy caravan site in the Green Belt.

The inspector accepted significant harm to Green Belt openness and visual amenity. He also considered the family’s accommodation needs, personal circumstances, Article 8 rights and evidence concerning authorised pitches, but concluded that very special circumstances had not been established.

The claimant argued that the inspector had wrongly found that alternative accommodation might become available and had failed to give sufficient weight to the Article 8 interests.

1. Challenge dismissed. The inspector had not found that a pitch was available, or probably would become available. He had concluded only that the possibility of future additional pitches accommodating the family could not be ruled out. That conclusion was open on the evidence of earlier vacancies, the historical shortfall and uncertainty concerning the Little Lane site.
2. The planning exercise required the harm caused by inappropriate Green Belt development to be balanced against all the claimant’s circumstances. Gypsy status and the associated housing and family difficulties were material considerations, but were neither determinative nor dispositive. The court could not isolate alternative accommodation and substitute its own assessment of its weight.
3. Article 8 did not require a heightened merits review. The proportionality discussion in Daly did not alter the supervisory nature of review. The approach described in Buckland & ors, and the planning analysis supported by Alconbury and Chapman, was consistent with the required Convention balance.
4. The inspector had considered the material matters and his conclusion was not irrational or unsupported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant, being legally aided, was granted detailed assessment of costs; no costs order was sought against the Secretary of State.