Hughes, R (on the application of) v Office of the Deputy Prime Minister & Ors

Where a planning decision departs from an inspector’s material findings, the decision-maker must comply with the applicable procedural safeguards and must base the disagreement on material considerations. A legal duty to provide education does not, without more, answer the practical disruption caused by repeated movement between unauthorised sites. The decision-maker must understand the evidence concerning the likely effect on children’s continuous and stable education before assigning that factor weight. In a green-belt case involving gypsy accommodation, the relationship between very special circumstances and the proportionality of interference with home and family life under Article 8 may be inseparable. A decision may be quashed and remitted without the court directing the outcome of the planning judgment.

The claimant challenged the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission for the stationing of caravans on a green-belt site in South Bedfordshire. The inspector had recommended a temporary, personal permission, relying principally on the children’s educational needs and, to a lesser extent, medical needs, together with the absence of alternative authorised sites.

The Secretary of State accepted that there were no readily available alternative sites and that removal would lead to travelling and roadside camping. He nevertheless concluded that the children’s educational needs did not amount to very special circumstances, relying partly on the local education authority’s legal obligations. The central issues were whether the Secretary of State had lawfully departed from the inspector’s factual conclusions, whether Rule 17(5) applied, and whether the educational and human-rights considerations had been properly assessed.

1. Appeal allowed and matter remitted. The Secretary of State was required to reconsider what course to adopt. The court did not direct that the inspector’s recommendation be followed.
2. Rule 17(5) of the Town and Country Planning Inquiry Procedure (England) Rules 2000 protects procedural fairness where the Secretary of State differs from the inspector on a material matter of fact or relies on new factual evidence. The Secretary of State’s disagreement about the length of the appellants’ search for a site was immaterial because he accepted that no alternative site was available and that removal would lead to roadside camping. It therefore did not trigger the rule or affect the result.
3. The Secretary of State could not properly treat the local education authority’s legal obligation to provide appropriate education as answering the inspector’s concern about the disruption caused by the absence of a settled residence. Movement between sites, and possible removal to other areas, could make attendance at a particular school difficult. If that factor was to justify disagreement with the inspector, the Secretary of State needed the fullest available information about the actual educational consequences.
4. The absence of identified special educational needs could reduce the weight of disruption, but it could not be treated as decisive without recognising that the children’s educational improvement was linked to their settled circumstances and might be jeopardised by renewed travelling.
5. The medical considerations were insufficient, in the circumstances, to amount to very special circumstances. By contrast, the planning significance of the children’s education and the proportionality of interference with home and family life under Article 8 were closely connected. The approach was consistent with Butlin v Secretary of State for the Environment [2002] JPL 570.
6. The Secretary of State had therefore failed properly to address the educational issue and had relied on an immaterial consideration, or relied on it without obtaining sufficient information. The court did not substitute its own planning judgment.

The judgment does not state any earlier judicial decision in the same litigation. It records an appeal from the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission following an inspector’s recommendation.