South Staffordshire District Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

When considering temporary planning permission for a gypsy or traveller site, an inspector must assess whether there is a reasonable expectation that suitable sites will become available within the relevant period. The expectation must concern sites capable of meeting the individual claimant’s needs, including relevant education and health requirements. General regional aims, unidentified sites and uncertain delivery timetables may be insufficient.

A planning decision need not address every evidential detail. Its reasons must intelligibly resolve the principal controversial issues and show that the relevant guidance has been understood and applied. A reasons challenge under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 288 succeeds only where the alleged deficiency causes substantial prejudice.

The claimant local planning authority challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision granting retrospective planning permission for a caravan site in the Green Belt. The permission was personal to the second defendant and his family but was not time-limited.

The inspector had found unmet need, no available alternative sites, and significant education and healthcare considerations. The claimant argued that she had misunderstood paragraph 45 of Circular 1/2006, considered too narrow a geographical area, applied too high a threshold to the likelihood of alternative sites becoming available, and gave inadequate reasons.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector had correctly applied paragraph 45 of Circular 1/2006 and had adequately explained why a temporary permission was not appropriate.
2. For paragraph 45 to be engaged, there must be a reasonable expectation that new sites are likely to become available within the relevant period and will meet the needs of the individual claimant. The relevant assessment includes the suitability, affordability and acceptability of the sites and their ability to accommodate the family’s identified education and healthcare needs. The approach in R (on the application of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council) v First Secretary of State and Angela Smith (19 February 2007) was adopted and applied.
3. The evidence before the inspector consisted principally of a regional interim statement identifying a general future need. It did not identify particular sites, their locations, the responsible authorities, or a reliable date for occupation. Identification of sites would itself be followed by planning procedures, consultation and possible delay. The inspector was therefore entitled to conclude that the evidence did not establish the required reasonable expectation.
4. The phrase “no degree of certainty” did not disclose a higher legal threshold when the decision was read as a whole. The inspector had expressly quoted the correct test and had used the phrase as a paraphrase of whether a reasonable expectation of delivery existed. A reasonable expectation imports more than hope and requires a reasonable belief in actual delivery.
5. The reasons were sufficient. Applying the guidance in South Bucks District Council v Porter No 2 [2004] UKHL 33, the decision had to address the principal controversial issues, but did not need to resolve every evidential detail. The claimant knew that its alternative case depended on other authorities providing suitable sites within four or five years, and the absence of evidence supporting that case answered the four grounds of challenge.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £8,500. No separate order for the second defendant’s costs was made.

The judgment itself records that an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State had allowed the second defendant’s planning appeal on 22 November 2007. The Administrative Court dismissed the local planning authority’s statutory challenge under section 288.