Wingrove & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Planning and housing definitions of “gypsies and travellers” serve different purposes. The broader housing definition informs assessment of accommodation needs, including housing and caravan-site needs. Inclusion within it does not automatically establish an entitlement to a caravan pitch or determine a planning application. An inspector is not obliged to consider an argument as a material consideration where it was not advanced and no supporting evidence or policy material was provided. Article 8 requires assessment of the policy as applied to the individual circumstances. The planning definition, focused on facilitating an actual nomadic way of life, does not itself breach Article 8.

The appellants occupied a caravan on land in Mendip. The local planning authority served an enforcement notice alleging a material change of use from agriculture to mixed agricultural and residential use.

Following an inquiry, the inspector dismissed the appeal against the enforcement notice, refused planning permission, granted an extended period for removal of the caravan, and concluded that removal would not breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellants sought permission to appeal and judicial review-style relief in a rolled-up hearing.

The central issues were whether the inspector had failed to consider the broader definition of “gypsies and travellers” used for housing-needs assessments, whether that definition affected the planning decision, and whether the decision inadequately addressed the appellants’ Article 8 interests.

1. Application dismissed and leave to appeal refused. The inspector made no error of law in finding that the appellants fell outside the definition in paragraph 15 of Circular 1/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites. The appellants accepted that conclusion.
2. The definition used for the purposes of section 225 of the Housing Act 2004, as supplemented by regulation 2 of the Housing (Assessment of Accommodation Needs) (Meaning of Gypsies and Travellers) (England) Regulations 2006, is broader than the planning definition. It includes persons with a cultural tradition of nomadism or of living in a caravan. Its purpose is to ensure that accommodation and related support needs are assessed, including needs for housing and different forms of site accommodation.
3. Inclusion within the broader housing definition does not establish that a person should live on a caravan site, should count towards caravan-site provision, or should receive planning permission. The housing-needs assessment informs the development-plan process, but its effect on site allocation and development control is distinct.
4. The inspector was not obliged to consider the appellants’ unadvanced argument concerning the broader definition. No relevant evidence had been provided about unmet need, the progress of the assessment, or the development plan. The inspector had already considered temporary permission on the material before him.
5. Article 8 had to be assessed by reference to the application of the planning policy to the particular facts. The planning definition did not itself breach Article 8. The inspector considered the appellants’ settled history, their lack of evidence of aversion to bricks and mortar, and their desire for a recently adopted country lifestyle. Removal of the caravan was therefore not disproportionate.
6. The distinction between housing need and development control should not be treated as entirely rigid, because the two systems are connected. That caution did not make consideration of the broader definition an obligatory material consideration in this case.

The appellants were ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, assessed at £6,914 and not enforceable without leave of the court.

The judgment describes a planning inquiry before a Secretary of State inspector. The inspector dismissed the appeal against the enforcement notice, refused planning permission, allowed an additional period for removal of the caravan, and rejected the Article 8 challenge. The Administrative Court dismissed the application and refused leave to appeal.