Jones, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

In a planning challenge based solely on irrationality, the court will not substitute its own planning judgment for that of an Inspector. A decision remains lawful where the balance between acknowledged need, lack of an identified alternative site, countryside protection and sustainability falls within the broad area of planning judgment, even though another Inspector might have reached a different result. The absence of an alternative site does not make every site outside an urban area acceptable. In an Article 8 case, the need for a home and the absence of alternatives must still be balanced against legitimate planning objectives. An established need does not require permission for a site causing substantial or significant site-specific harm.

Two travelling showmen groups challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Inspector decisions dismissing appeals against refusals of planning permission for permanent quarters at Fosccombe Hill, Gloucestershire, and Ryecroft Road, Hemington, Leicestershire.

Both Inspectors accepted a need for accommodation and found no identified suitable alternative site. They nevertheless found substantial or significant visual harm to the countryside and adverse sustainability consequences. The Gloucestershire Inspector also found poor access to services; the Leicestershire Inspector applied Local Plan Policy H16 and considered Article 8. The central issue was whether the final planning balance was irrational or disproportionate.

1. The applications were dismissed. The challenge was confined to the contention that the Inspectors’ final balances were irrational. There was no allegation of failure to consider a material matter, reliance on an irrelevant matter, or inadequate reasoning.
2. Rationality in public law includes decisions that defy comprehension or proceed by flawed logic. These decisions did neither. The decision letters were comprehensive, the appeals were finely balanced, and the conclusions fell within the very broad area of planning judgment available to the Inspectors. The fact that another Inspector might have struck the balance differently did not establish irrationality.
3. The existence of an acknowledged need and the absence of an identified alternative site did not require permission for the particular sites proposed. A site outside an urban area or the relevant limits of development was not thereby acceptable. The decision-maker had to balance the benefits of meeting the need against site-specific harm to the countryside, sustainability objectives and other planning policies.
4. In the Leicestershire case, the Inspector was entitled to conclude that the availability of a more sustainable alternative could not be ruled out, despite accepting that the claimants had made reasonable efforts to find one. In a wide or regional search, the weight to be given to the possibility of an unidentified alternative was a matter of planning judgment.
5. The Article 8 issue added nothing material to the challenge. Article 8 conferred a right to respect for a home, not a right to be provided with a home. The Inspector had considered the relevant factors and was entitled to conclude that refusal pursued legitimate aims and was proportionate.
6. The claimants in each case were ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs. Costs were summarily assessed at £4,000 for each case, reflecting that the claims had been heard together.